Bookie restrictions abolished?

icebreaker

icebreaker

At the Start
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,957
From yesterday's Guardian comes good news for winning punters who all-to-often have their accounts closed or bets limited to £2 stake.
But only welcome news for punters playing the horses in New South Wales. There, and most likely throughout the entire Australian region later, bookmakers will be obliged to accept all bets up to a maximum 2,000 win payout irrespective of the punter placing the bet.
Will we ever see a similar ruling put in place in these islands? Doubt it, but if it were to happen, it would have enormous benefit for us.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


"Richard Irvine, from the punters’ lobby group Fair Wagering, claims companies such as Luxbet, Centrebet and Bet365 – all of which are based in the Northern Territory for tax reasons – actively discriminate against successful amateurs and professional gamblers.
Five NT-based bookies have severely restricted or closed his accounts citing commercial reasons."
 
Doubt we'll even have a 'punter's lobby group', which is a crying shame in these days of advanced communication.
 
A better idea than a lobby group could be betting clubs.

A large membership with a couple of members placing all the best for everyone

Overall the odds say the group will lose the group will lose

However the individuals who are regular winners are hidden from the bookmakers.

Problem solved. Do I get royalties? :lol:
 
SlimChance said:
Would you let everyone insure their car for the same price?
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, I think ( but open to correction) that car insurance in Australia does cost the same price for everyone ! :D
(The insurance premium is state-administered and is levied on the vehilce tax or petrol -- or something like that).

Okay, from your post I think you may be suggesting that it is sensible to restrict consistently winning punters. Fair enough; it's a line that undoubtedly is practised by bookmaking firms, and claimed to be somehow justifiable. But that's an easy-out.
The solution would be for these bookmaking firms to be less lazy -- make a proper balanced book like Pinnacle and don't just fall back on an accountant-focussed policy of closing accounts.
I think it would be marvellous if the authorities on these islands followed this Australian example.
Bring on the day.
 
Why use them at all if you are unhappy with the service,

In the nest at Sandown you could have 5000 pounds on Amore Alato at 3/1 in a matter of seconds with Betfair no questions asked.

Call Ladbrokes or whoever and you got no chance
 
Weird one that. was there. Went to 9/4 in the ring and then drifted like mad before the off
 
Tanlic said:
Why use them at all if you are unhappy with the service,
Click to expand...
Sometimes the liquidity just isn't there. Have a look right now at Parx, Tampa, Sunland, or any other of tonight's U.S.A. racing for illustration of this.
The 5% base rate commission also needs to be factored in.
A substantial bookmaker makes oddslines on most events; Now, imagine a planet where a bookmaker is obliged by law to lay you any bet on any event of your choice up to a maximum 2,000 payout. Punting heaven.
Such a scenario might well spell the end of arbs, but it won't mean the end of "value" bets ............. bets which at least you would be able to get on without being knocked back. Bets which you will be able to get on without fear of your account being closed if they win.

Too long the books have been getting away with odds offerings that just don't exist when you ask for them; or with the likes of Leon Blanche spouting bullcrap about laying "thousands" on such-and-such. The Australian initiative is a good step, imo. I believe any serious-minded punter would welcome it.
 
Last edited:
You make some good points icebreaker but because bookmakers are looking to attract the recreational bettor the ensuing price war. offers, extra markets and in general competitive pricing has meant that's its now quite easy to win. That's why anyone with a bit nous ends up closed across the board.

The Pinnacle model is really very similar to the Betfair. For horse racing on Betfair , like Pinnacle, you only get a proper bet on close to the off of an event. I don't see an end to restrictions anytime soon but something might have to give in the longer term.
 
Last edited:
If 'smart' money was invited back in the consequence would be standard e/w terms revised to a fifth in conditions and a sixth in handicaps (same as we increasingly see on course). One also suspects that they'll stick 5% on the over round too. The beneficiaries would be the exchanges. Bookmaking is an oligopolist market (not a perfect market as is often assumed) and I'm sure if Betfair could prove detriment on the same transaction (which they can't) they'd be trying to force something on restraint of trade as it would mean their competitors having to accept higher risk bets (from a layers perspective) which they'd probably mitigate with worse terms
 
SlimChance said:
I don't see an end to restrictions anytime soon but something might have to give in the longer term.
Click to expand...
However, as we know, Bet365 will now be obliged to lift these restrictions and accept bets from all clients. Does Paddy have a presence in Oz? I think that they do.
So, now that these northern hemisphere-based books have to accept the new betting landscape in Australia, maybe -- just maybe, they will feel pressure to apply the same standards to their european customers. When word of the Australian ruling spreads, clients of these books elsewhere are bound to feel agrieved and begin to demand similar non-restrictions. Bet365 and Paddy will find it hard to justify applying a different and disadvantageous set of rules to the majority of their clients.


In a way, if it ever did happen, it might have a beneficial effect for these books. Imagine the effect of an advertising line -- guaranteed that we will lay you up to 2,000 winnings at the published price. It would be a clincher; a game-changer. Potential customers would flock to that book in their droves.
 
Oz will have not effect on how PP or 365 trade up here. Laying everyone a bet to lose 2k in our market would not be unsustainable.
 
Warbler said:
If 'smart' money was invited back in the consequence would be standard e/w terms revised to a fifth in conditions and a sixth in handicaps
Click to expand...
That is indeed a distinct possibility -- as are other ruses that the big bookmakers might use to protect themselves from "smart" bettors who cannot be knocked back or closed out.
But the multi-Billion bookmaking game isn't a monopoly by any means. Competition among the books will be as intense as always is, and the big ones will try to protest their market share. You might not see as much deterioration in prices or offers in the non-restrictive scenario as you might expect.
 
SlimChance said:
Oz will have not effect on how PP or 365 trade up here. Laying everyone a bet to lose 2k in our market would not be unsustainable.
Click to expand...
But it will be sustainable in Australia? Why sustainable there but not here?
It's a genuine question. Are Australian punters less "smart" than us?
 
icebreaker said:
But it will be sustainable in Australia? Why sustainable there but not here?
It's a genuine question. Are Australian punters less "smart" than us?
Click to expand...

A large chunk of Oz internet bookies are owned by UK based firms such B365 and Wm Hill, which hardly suggests it's unsustainable here.
Aussie punters just shout louder than we do.
 
If I'm reading Slim correctly, he's saying it "would not be unsustainable" - in other words, the firms could do it.

I suppose the big hitters will look for Oz accounts now or brokers
 
I'll have to find out what the story is down there since this has come in for PP. I know it used to be you had to lay a bet to lose 1,000 down there and they were comfortable enough with that. One thing to consider is that Oz racing may just be priced way more efficiently. They essentially just input times into a model and to spits out a price something that is not possible up here. They also have seperate win and place books so there are no in built e/w anomalies.
 
SlimChance said:
I'll have to find out what the story is down there since this has come in for PP. I know it used to be you had to lay a bet to lose 1,000 down there
Click to expand...
Indeed, yes it was -- for on-track bookmakers. But this new legislation now extends that requirement to online bookmakers too.
 
Back
Top