Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
https://twitter.com/sothegreatgame/status/1643085204775649285
https://twitter.com/CaanBerryTrader/status/1643331946963927040
Ladbrokesau bod admits they restrict winning customers
https://twitter.com/CaanBerryTrader/status/1643331946963927040
Ladbrokesau bod admits they restrict winning customers
Show More
The head of Australia's largest online sports betting company and the chair of a parliamentary inquiry looking into internet gambling have shared a tense encounter in Canberra over whether successful gamblers get blocked from betting.
The inquiry has heard evidence that some companies will reduce maximum bets or block access entirely when gamblers are on a successful run.
House of Representatives committee chair Peta Murphy said she knew someone personally who had experienced this treatment, and pursued SportsBet and Entain, the parent company of Ladbrokes and Neds, on the issue at a hearing in Canberra on Tuesday.
SportsBet CEO Barni Evans said customers are blocked only in very narrow cases.
"If we believe that they're acting with information that the rest of the market doesn't have, and if their behaviour is distorting the market, which means that other customers' experience is affected, then we will take action," Mr Evans said.
In a terse to-and-fro, Mr Evans twice repeated a similar response, despite Ms Murphy's efforts to extract more information from him. Ms Murphy concluded by saying she would accept Mr Evans's evidence as a "yes, you stop people who are consistently winning from betting".
"That's your prerogative," Mr Evans replied.
Earlier, Entain's Steven Lang told the hearing that of 698,000 active customers in 2022, 176,000 had made money, and the company was required to offer bets to everyone for horse races. He conceded, however, that bets may be limited for other events.
"For some other events where there is less liquidity and less certainty in relation to the markers, we may impose some restrictions on a small number of customers," Mr Lang said.
Nick Minchin, chair of the Responsible Wagering Australia lobby group that covers much of the industry, said blocking winning gamblers was not industry practice overall, "but inevitably there will be occasions where a customer is excluded".
Self-exclusions rise
The CEO of the Australian Banking Association, Anna Bligh, surprised the committee when she revealed 500,000 Australians had asked their banks to block their gambling expenditure using a so-called "self-veto".
"Our most recent check in with our members, which was about six months ago, there were collectively across all our existing banks more than half-a-million Australians who have put a self-veto on their own account," she said.
The national self-exclusion register BetStop is set to be launched in coming months.
The committee wraps up hearings this week and is expected to deliver its recommendations by the middle of the year.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-04/online-gambling-house-of-representatives-committee-sportsbet/102186232
That's a big proportion of self-exclusions in a population of 25 million.
The inquiry has heard evidence that some companies will reduce maximum bets or block access entirely when gamblers are on a successful run.
House of Representatives committee chair Peta Murphy said she knew someone personally who had experienced this treatment, and pursued SportsBet and Entain, the parent company of Ladbrokes and Neds, on the issue at a hearing in Canberra on Tuesday.
SportsBet CEO Barni Evans said customers are blocked only in very narrow cases.
"If we believe that they're acting with information that the rest of the market doesn't have, and if their behaviour is distorting the market, which means that other customers' experience is affected, then we will take action," Mr Evans said.
In a terse to-and-fro, Mr Evans twice repeated a similar response, despite Ms Murphy's efforts to extract more information from him. Ms Murphy concluded by saying she would accept Mr Evans's evidence as a "yes, you stop people who are consistently winning from betting".
"That's your prerogative," Mr Evans replied.
Earlier, Entain's Steven Lang told the hearing that of 698,000 active customers in 2022, 176,000 had made money, and the company was required to offer bets to everyone for horse races. He conceded, however, that bets may be limited for other events.
"For some other events where there is less liquidity and less certainty in relation to the markers, we may impose some restrictions on a small number of customers," Mr Lang said.
Nick Minchin, chair of the Responsible Wagering Australia lobby group that covers much of the industry, said blocking winning gamblers was not industry practice overall, "but inevitably there will be occasions where a customer is excluded".
Self-exclusions rise
The CEO of the Australian Banking Association, Anna Bligh, surprised the committee when she revealed 500,000 Australians had asked their banks to block their gambling expenditure using a so-called "self-veto".
"Our most recent check in with our members, which was about six months ago, there were collectively across all our existing banks more than half-a-million Australians who have put a self-veto on their own account," she said.
The national self-exclusion register BetStop is set to be launched in coming months.
The committee wraps up hearings this week and is expected to deliver its recommendations by the middle of the year.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-04/online-gambling-house-of-representatives-committee-sportsbet/102186232
That's a big proportion of self-exclusions in a population of 25 million.
Perhaps you should have highlighted ...
'and the company was required to offer bets to everyone for horse races'
'and the company was required to offer bets to everyone for horse races'
They were pulled up on that one not so long ago
Summat about taking at least 200 aussie dollars minimum bet?
Summat about taking at least 200 aussie dollars minimum bet?
There's around 16 million adults aged between 19 and 70 over there.
I'd say that covers the vast majority of gamblers who bet with bookmakers.
So 500,000 asking their banks to basically help them with their gambling exploits is a significant number if taken at face value.
I'd say that covers the vast majority of gamblers who bet with bookmakers.
So 500,000 asking their banks to basically help them with their gambling exploits is a significant number if taken at face value.
over whether successful gamblers get blocked from betting
upcoming 'encounters' include -
Is the pope catholic?
Do bears sh!t in the woods?
Does a cow “moo”?
Does paddy manipulate the prices on betfair?
Do fish swim?
upcoming 'encounters' include -
Is the pope catholic?
Do bears sh!t in the woods?
Does a cow “moo”?
Does paddy manipulate the prices on betfair?
Do fish swim?
@leif
"So 500,000 asking their banks to basically help them with their gambling exploits is a significant number if taken at face value"
If it is that. I am self-excluded from Casino, Arcade and Poker on here - that's not because I have a gambling problem with them, but - before BF introduced 2FA and I was more concerned about the security of my account - they were ways people emptied compromised accounts with little chance of getting your money back.
So - are any of those 500k just Aussies who don't gamble and are just putting extra banking security in check?
Just a thought.
"So 500,000 asking their banks to basically help them with their gambling exploits is a significant number if taken at face value"
If it is that. I am self-excluded from Casino, Arcade and Poker on here - that's not because I have a gambling problem with them, but - before BF introduced 2FA and I was more concerned about the security of my account - they were ways people emptied compromised accounts with little chance of getting your money back.
So - are any of those 500k just Aussies who don't gamble and are just putting extra banking security in check?
Just a thought.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539