Victorian minimum betting framework doesn't give punters a fair go

By Tristan Rayner / Editor

Minimum bet laws might not make much difference to the casual punter, but to those serious about the game, bookmakers with all the odds in their favour are finally being challenged.

Backed a winner recently with a corporate bookmaker? What about a couple? What about showing profits over a month or two, including some juicy wins?

You might’ve found yourself on the end of punting’s raw deal: win too much, and you’re likely to be banned.

The above might not sound legal or correct, but it’s what is happening despite Australia’s consumer laws.

If you prove that you know the races or sport better than the bookmakers, and you’ll be watched closely, limited, or regretfully told services will not longer be available, and betting restrictions will apply.

Betting operators simply don’t have to take bets from those they think are winners, and they’ve won court cases to secure that fact.

Of course, bookmakers will happily take money from consistent or overall losers. From the Melbourne Cup-only punter to more problem gamblers, most average punters can make significant bets without restrictions, and they’re encouraged. Betting credit, free bonus bets, and enticements such as tickets to a big game if you’re losing a lot are all on offer.

Sound fair? It’s a raw deal and almost comical – if they can’t beat you, they ban you. If they can, they encourage you to keep losing.

It’s wrong to suggest all bookmakers operate and certainly there are noted exceptions, but a number of larger operators that take place significant advertising and promotions are part of this game against winners. They’re your mates on social media, but that all changes if you’re actually beating them.

A win for punters
After a great deal of pressure, particularly due to highly commendable action already taken by Racing NSW in September 2014, Racing Victoria has finally committed to bringing in minimum bet laws in 2016.

It’s overdue. NSW got the jump on Victoria and most punters are satisfied with the changes that have allowed for a fairer playing field. The old rivalry between the states has helped punters, for once.

Previously, Racing Victoria had said “legal reasons and operational challengers” were given for why minimum bet laws were impossible to bring in, as much as they said they wanted to. Evidently, those have been taken care of.

For the uninitiated, minimum bet laws (MBL) means that bookmakers are compelled to take bets from nearly all comers. That means they can no longer only take on the losers, but are forced to take on decent sized bets from those that win as well.

Racing Victoria’s MBL framework and invitation for comment

The major change in the proposed framework for online corporate bookmakers, or Wagering Service Providers (WSPs) as the consultation paper calls them, is a minimum risk slated at $1000 for win bets on metropolitan and country races, and $500 for place bets.

However, racing wouldn’t be racing without needing to accommodate all parties. And the current MBL framework includes a stack of conditions and loopholes that amount to frustratingly little for savvy punters.

Breaking down every single one will require too many hours for here, but there are some glaring problems with the framework as it stands.

The framework can be viewed here via Racing Victoria.

Criticisms
To start with obvious problems (and you’ll need to have the framework in front of you here to look at), the amounts of risk taken on win and place bets are less than Racing NSW’s laws on metropolitan racing, which is where big betting generally happens. On the other hand, country races in Victoria can be bet for more, which is useful.

But to get straight into the meat of the issue, the new minimum bet laws are set to be strictly governed by race times.

Punters will only be able to be guaranteed a bet 30 minutes before a race, and cut-off two minutes before advertised race time. Add in that punters can only bet one horse once, no matter if odds change, creates limits that when combined, are vastly too strict.

The fact that bigger bets for punters will only be taken 30 minutes before a race is a huge problem for all punters, amateur or serious.

Markets are framed by form analysts and traders days in advance of most races.

Odds are published mid-week for Saturday races by most operators. RV comments that this “Focus[es] on the time period where the majority of betting activity takes place”.

This is a strange call.

It doesn’t go close to explaining why odds that are published can’t be bet on as soon as they become available. Punters are appealing for a 9am start to minimum bets on race days; it could go even further if punters were truly being favoured.

Perhaps even more curious though is the two-minute rule, where bets won’t be accepted in the two minutes before a race. This is, in RV’s words, to “manage adverse exposure”.

Have bookmakers suddenly stopped managing risk? Again adding in the fact that each horse can only be bet on once in a 28 minute period, and book managers are now laughing.

Punters aren’t expecting to go from being limited or severely restricted to suddenly having a free-for-all, but the way the changes are slated won’t let punters duke it out with bookmakers the way it was once.

Let Mark Read set the scene, from my interview with him last year:

Read feels the punter is hard done by in this day and age, thanks to ‘greedy, opportunistic’ UK corporates that has seen wagering in Australia stagnate.

Read noted that in his day he’d take on big punters. “If I saw someone had an edge, I’d bet with them as well.

“I thought [Saintly] was a good thing in the Melbourne Cup,” Read said.

“I backed him myself and Kerry Packer rang up and said ‘I want a million on Saintly’ five minutes before the race.

“I put it straight on the NSW tote.”

Let’s not forget that Read continued this during the online era via the old IASBet operation.

Racing Victoria can’t introduce such a limited minimum bet arrangement.

Even Crownbet, who made an early PR-savvy move and went early, introducing a minimum bet allowance across all Australian thoroughbred racing, didn’t stipulate a two-minute before race limit. So which bookmakers are pushing this?

Punters remain handicapped, for reasons that aren’t clear except to those who have managed to shout down the idea of a minimum bet law in the past.

Racing Victoria is currently taking submissions on the proposed frameworks of laws, closing by 5pm Friday 29 July, 2016. This column will be submitted. Let’s hope they hear enough common sense to take the side of the punter.

The Crowd Says:

2016-08-15T10:57:33+00:00

Bondy

Guest


What I find just as interesting is that if you're a half decent punter and rarely lose you are not allowed to withdraw your funds because you've not bet the entirety through (rolled over all funds)thats anpther cunning ploy the corporates use, Sportsbet did this trick to me they wouldn't allow withdrawal of funds because I wasn't a loser . I subsequently left Sportsbet and moved to Betfair (apologies for the promo) BFair allow funds to be withdrawn under any circumstances anytime the corporates in the Northern Territory dont .. I backed Saintly in that Melbourne Cup he was good thing and won like it ...

2016-07-29T06:49:21+00:00

Nathan Absalom

Roar Guru


It reads as though Racing Victoria have gone out of their way to accommodate too many stakeholders and ended up muddying the waters even more. Not for the first time in racing, and certainly won't be the last.

2016-07-29T00:39:08+00:00

kv joef

Roar Guru


interesting article involving the coroprates in the Fin Review ... http://www.afr.com/business/gambling/crownbets-matthew-tripp-wants-accc-investigation-into-tabcorps-sky-channel-20160726-gqdt0a not only does it indirectly detail how the corporates are cannibalizing the recreational punter, check the graph down the page ... and as for the article ... talk about the kettle calling the pot, black! the future of gambling in Australia is a fair gambling act and a different direction to the one been taken now.

2016-07-28T23:23:59+00:00

kv joef

Roar Guru


good submission mark ... the 2 mins stop so they can trade off? why 2 mins? hedge funds trade in micro-seconds. they wouldn't be re-balancing their books with OS operators that may or may not minimise the 'vig' so it makes it a 'win-win' or should i say 'can't lose-can't lose'. Oz-punters can't do that. its illegal for them. no, the corporates wouldn't do something like that, would they?

2016-07-28T01:41:52+00:00

Mark Haywood

Roar Pro


Too big to reproduce here, but my own response to RVL's proposal FYI: http://www.championbets.com.au/blog/horse-racing/minimum-bet-rules-victoria/

2016-07-27T22:38:05+00:00

kv joef

Roar Guru


Great article Tristan. In a sober world, if a bookmaker chose to close an account, i feel they should have to submit compelling evidence of wrongdoing to stewards. Corporates set their odds by a casino strategy and the only thing that can bring a casino unstuck is expert knowledge (card counters) and large winning bets. Bookmakers, originally, called turf-accountants, were never meant to act as a casino but as middleman taking a percentage of the 'hold' like a Bertfair used to be. corporates offering misleading information or should i say, the lack of explanation of their punters-help information, would not be tolerated by the modern stockmarket but somehow passes muster as informative commentary. make no mistake, corporates want to move racing punters to the sports-markets or better described as leading the lambs to their slaughter. Racing administrations shouldn't be helping them do it. nick xenophon needs to broaden his approach and realise the first way to stop the spread of the 'corporate-evil' is to put them against players who can hurt them, those experienced 'casino players' who know the 'house' weakness ... and who knows may be willing to honestly discuss strategies for the recreational player.

AUTHOR

2016-07-27T17:03:55+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


I have particular problems with "big bet" announcements. The only guys who can bet big are net losers or those with special arrangements. If you hear of a big bet on a horse on bookmaker known to watch their exposure like hawks, it must make you wonder if you want to be on rather than given any sort of confidence. It's different with tote and retail betting of course.

AUTHOR

2016-07-27T16:59:38+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Thanks mate. I think it goes something like this: Step 1: Get a library of Simpsons photos and quotes Step 2: Apply them to any sporting scenario possible!

AUTHOR

2016-07-27T16:51:51+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Hi Geoff, no complaints :) Thanks a bunch. Hope your horses are getting faster?

AUTHOR

2016-07-27T16:50:36+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Yep, if you're onto the last leg, just bet the other side for insurance rather than take a cash out!

AUTHOR

2016-07-27T16:49:31+00:00

Tristan Rayner

Editor


Great replies here from some switched on people. "Corporations with CRM" - how very apt..

2016-07-27T13:04:47+00:00

Mark Haywood

Roar Pro


It's not their private venture Marshall. They don't produce a product - in this example, Racing Victoria do. Bookmakers operate under a license. They're actually not licensed to just take money off losers, mugs and problem gamblers. They're licensed to frame a market on an event, manage that market, and take their percentage - which, unless they're shockingly incompetent, they'll always end up getting. Because it's (quite rightly) built into the market they control. They then pay a license/product fee to the producer for the privilege, and the rest is their profit. Fees are generally based largely on turnover, so any sporting/racing body who doesn't make it a condition of license that bookies accept bets from everybody (to a reasonable commercial level for all) is crazy. They're the customers and their lifetime value is huge (wagering currently accounts for 95% of RV's total annual income). It never used to be a problem because bookmakers were bookmakers. Now they're not. They're corporations with a CRM system.

2016-07-27T12:00:27+00:00

Nick

Guest


I can't stress enough, stay away from Centrebet/William hill. They banned me because I was consistently beating them and then didn't have the guts to at least give me an explanation. Weak.

2016-07-27T10:54:26+00:00

no one in particular

Roar Guru


As this is turnover based funded industry, and tote turnover continues to fall, then racing jurisdictions will look for ways to maximise turnover. Forcing bookmakers to a minimum bet is a start. Bookmakers are in the business of writing a bet. They can complain all they like, but if they don't comply they can't bet on the product

2016-07-27T10:50:39+00:00

no one in particular

Roar Guru


Ladbrokes are the worst, followed by Bet$3.65. I know people who have been cut from Ladbrokes before their first bet has run. Hills are just completely useless, even worst now they have shipped most of the jobs to Manila

2016-07-27T04:49:53+00:00

scouser4life

Roar Rookie


William Hill are masters of the banning. Offer promotions and when you win consistently they ban you.

2016-07-27T00:41:29+00:00

kos1nsk1

Guest


I really don't care who pays the subsidy for my sporting pleasure - punters or bookmakers - as long as they keep doing it!

2016-07-27T00:31:28+00:00

Marshall

Guest


While I agree with the sentiment, in practice this is very difficult as at the end of the day it's a private venture and anyone in any business can choose whom they wish to do business with (obviously except for discrimination based on race or gender). If someone is bad for my business, I would politely advise them to take their business elsewhere.

2016-07-27T00:22:14+00:00

peeeko

Roar Guru


Well said Tristan, i am a little sick of the bookmakers all trying to be everyones best friend. They never miss an opportunity to tell us about some mystery punter who won big from a multi - i dont believe it

2016-07-27T00:02:25+00:00

Patrick Effeney

Editor


Interesting piece mate. It's a great point that their social media strategy is uniquely based around being your best mate. I guess you have to be taken out to dinner before you spend your cash...

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar