Is our problem with sports betting or Tom Waterhouse?

I don't watch the football and I'm tired of Tom Waterhouse. Back a few months ago (beginning of the football season???) when he had a huge advertising push - football? (I missed that one), Saturday afternoon (or weekend daytime) and after about 10pm (especially later in the week) every or every other ad was Tom Waterhouse. So an hour long program was 40 - 45 minutes of actual program and the rest of it is ads. Well there were times that of the 15 to 20 minutes of ads, 2/3 - 3/4 was Tom Waterhouse. (So 10minutes of 15, 15 minutes of 20). Gosh only knows how bad the football was.

I watch the Channel 9 Footy because I want to watch FOOTBALL - NOT - TOM WATERHOUSE. He is a Horse racing Bookmaker, keep him at the tracks and not on the Football Grounds where he doesn't belong! If Channel 9 persists with this betting sellout, I will give up the football I have watched for years. Shame on you Channel 9!

couldn't have put it better myself sheek, spot on

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. Yes, it's much better having an Aussie rip off Australians than foreigners... (rolls eyes)

Tom Waterhouse just caters to the "problem" gambler.How can you make an informed decision in just a few 'impulsive" minutes ? How can you be married to a "crook" and not be one ? I don't think any other country in the world would allow a horse trainer to be licenced, when her husband and son are both bookmakers !! This is an obvious conflict of interest. If Gai Waterhouse has a runner in a race,i simply do not bet. It just adds another element of "uncertainty" to an "uncertain" game at best !! Any astute punter knows this !!! We have all seen the results of "problem" gamblers - Take poker machines out of pubs and get Tom Waterhouse off TV !!

It's not hard to be a multimillionaire when you are born a multimillionaire with rich parents. "Hard working" at making himself more money so he can afford the latest Ferrari every year. I am an adult and I choose not to gamble and that's why I choose not to watch any sport on TV with Waterhouse or any other gambling salesmen in it. Just the sight of him annoys me.

He's elected to make his image a brand and therefore has elected it to be open to public consumption and commentary. and yes he's creepy.

Oh you are thinking of regulated markets. you know where the government actually cares about the outcomes. It's like how the regular poster on here, Scott Woodward, keeps saying "investment" when referring to a bet. personally I think Scott should be in jail as at that point he's passed over to the regulated world and is making claims that would see a stock anlayst in trouble.

chanell 9 tendered to be allowed to broadcast the football into our homes. to broadcast is not being allowed to run the show and take over the coverage. they have brought in the gambling advertisments onto our screens. where is the responsible gambling with this shoved into your face at every chanell 9 coverage. the nrl should go back to nine and get control back of the game . it may be free to air but its not free of annoyance with 13 advertisments after 5 minutes of play during the souths penrith game, by the time the screaming ray warren came back on air people forget not only the score but it is so long you even forget who is actually playing.

I don't think we need the odds constantly rammed down our throats either but I don't understand the vitriol directed at Tom Waterhouse. All the other major players in the industry (with the exception of the TAB and it's subsidiary - Luxbet) such as Centrebet, Sportsbet, Sportingbet, Bet365, Betfair and Allsports are all now owned outright by overseas comglomerates like Ireland's Paddy Power. Tom's a young aussie up against overseas competitors with massive resources. How else is he going to compete and win? I reckon we should all cut him a bit slack, he's showing a bit of ticker taking these blokes on at their own game.

Yes, disingenuous is a much better word. They say that you don't have to do something, but then they spend their money, time and resources working out how to convince you that you should do it. It is extraordinarily disingenuous. There is a whole 'science' of convincing others how to do something that they may not have otherwise done. It's called marketing.. A single individual has a hard time competing against a million dollar marketing campaign.

Indeed ~ you don't have to gamble, smoke, drink, or buy, buy buy buy buy. But what 'choice' is there when viewing free to air TV? None ~ mute control doesn't remove the image

Tom's "hard work" = "inhertitance" for ordinary people

Indeed, and Gai's inability to see a difference between hard work and working toward the social good is a bit pathetic.

Fair enough question Solly. Why do I pay to go and watch a football match when I can see it for free at home? Why do I share costs to go ballooning or rafting? Why do I do anything where I have nothing to show for it in the end. It comes down to the shared experience with others, the thrill for a little while, the escape. I dont have to allocate that $20-$30 for the Melbourne Cup just as I dont have to enter an office sweep. But I'm allocating the money just for a yearly bit of fun with others, a shared experience. I dont buy lottery tickets Lotto etc but many do just for the dream, the momentary thrill The issue is to know where the fantasy must end and reality prevails. The point is I am not so much putting in the money to win, though to win is of course a big plus. I allocate it for the momentary experience with others, knowing I can afford to lose that money and in fact expecting to. Winning in that sense is not the point, its the experience that's what its about. Now the problem with an addict is that, they also enjoy the buzz of the experience but they dont know when to or feel unable to stop. Its like someone experiencing a few glasses of wine with dinner for the experience and then moving on to other things. An addict wont stop seeking to enjoy the experience for several differing reasons. I was employed in a role where I needed to discuss these issues with addicts and one of the points I always made was if you are going to place yourself in a position where you are likely to bet or drink, ensure that you take only a small amount of money with you that you can afford to lose and no more. If you havent got it you cant spend it. Same principle for someone who goes out for a drinking session with mates. You must always protect yourself ahead and therefore you dont drive your car and have enough money for a cab. Of course the better answer is dont drink, dont gamble if you know you have a weakness in that regard, but we have to view this realistically. There is nothing wrong with gambling per se. We gamble every day in some ways and that is part of the thrill of life. Its recognising where the thrill becomes something seriously dangerous to you that's important. Some people are unable to stop experiencing the thrill and seeking that thrill becomes their life. I am however against the manner in which gambling is being promoted today. I hate pokies dominating clubs and hotels, ads constantly inviting me to bet on a sporting event, an image being projected that to gamble and continue to gamble is a good thing. I'm against it because I've known so many people whose lives have been damaged by excesses in this regard. Its should be a momentary fantasy only and it is seriously dangerous to those who cant control it. We know it exists and thats fine but we dont need it thrust down our throats But in answer yes, I dont have to allocate $20-$30 each Melbourne Cup to enjoy it. But I choose to do so because I guess then I have a small vested interest in the event. But hey, you're talking to someone who has tended to always play it safe. Sometimes that's boring.

Its the small little thrill you get from the potential to win money (has a nice academic name I believe). If you don't get it then that's great as it means you will never have any attraction to games of chance.

Legal and ethical are so vastly different. Generally those that do not make the distinction are those incapable of ethical behaviour.

It's not just a cliche, it's also incredibly disingenuous. It's a little like saying "you don't have to smoke". Yeah, sure you don't, but when it's shoved in your face every where you guy and plastered all over the TV, it doesn't take much for people to slip up and get hooked. And gambling is an incredibly addictive behaviour that is about far more than simple individual choice. If you grow up in a ghetto in the bronx your chances of becoming addicted to crack cocaine are significantly higher than if you're in a nice suburban private school like little Tommy was. People's addictive behaviours are about more than a few bad choices; they are just as heavily linked to genes, environment and education, and what we are doing is fostering one bloody disgusting and toxic environment. It's little wonder Aussies are the biggest morons in the world when it comes to gambling - we lose almost double the next 6 countries barring Singapore per capita when it comes to gambling losses, and that is utterly disgraceful.

People having a crack at his smile is just fair game if you ask me. If a guy buys his way into the commentary team and starts pushing the already loathed involvement of gambling even further to the point where he's basically pretending to be a commentator, then people are going to attack him for everything - including his creepy bloody smile. The point is that this is truly a powder keg issue, and little Tommy has managed to set it off with his stunt. He's not the problem, he's just an emblem for it.

"In my limited experience with him I’ve found Tom to be engaging, polite and smart – in all aspects a decent enough young man. He is also running a legal business." Just because something is legal doesn't make it right Allanthus. Waterhouse is little different from a meth dealer in terms of what his "product" does to people. The only difference is this country seems to think that gambling is just a matter of personal responsibility, rather than social, in spite of a plethora of neuro-scientific evidence demonstrating that gambling has as strong an effect on dopamine (and therefore addiction) as any number of "illegal" drugs. Can I also add good manners and intelligence are a poor sign of goodness as well. You'll find plenty of well mannered, engaging and superficially intelligent people among sociopaths.