Editorial
Pages
April
2003
Betting
exchange hysteria.
Recently
one of our AFL football clients posted the following
link to our AFL Insiders Forum.
Betfair
faces millions in fines after content ruled illegal
It
links to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald online,
by Craig Young, which breathlessly reports the imminent
ejection of evil betting exchanges from the Australian
market as scripted by the vested interests who currently
dominate gambling revenues in this country.
Unfortunately
for those interests and the scribes who pander to
them, punters are not inclined to be easily convinced
that market competition and better value for them
is a bad thing. As the saying goes, 'you can fool
some of the people some of the time, but you can't
fool all of the people all of the time'.
The
feedback on the article came thick and fast from grass
roots punters. First shot fired was from 'Tony M',
a professional punter contracted by OZmium to provide
information on tennis betting.
"I'm
glad it was published on April Fools Day.
What
a joke, yet another example of media interests protecting
the hands that feed them.
A
couple of comments:
"It
is illegal for Australian punters to bet with Betfair,
which is a licensed betting firm in the United Kingdom."
It
is not. NSW has draconian legislation to protect their
revenues from the TAB, other states do not. I'm not
sure, but has anybody been charged under their legislation?
"First
or last, they never lose: Betfair - how it works"
How about "first or last they never lose: TABs
and how they work" with their 15%+ takes? 5%
versus 15%+, ummm... let me think about it.
"a
respected racing identity who asked the Herald not
to be named"
Let's
guess - a backward bookmaker who is yet to move into
the technology age? Respected by whom?
"The
High Court of Australia decision in the Dow Jones
v Gutnick decision is simple - something is published where it is read."
In my book I'm not reading content I'm using a service.
"Using
true probability mathematics, a punter having 100
$50 bets on a $5 chance generates turnover of $5,000
and will break square."
Not if you use the TAB. Mathematics says you will
get $4,250 back of which $244 goes to the
racing industry (if their figures are accurate). What
happened to the other $506?
"Betfair
provides no monetary returns to the Australian racing
industry."
But
they are willing to. Just read the comments before.
Articles
like this make my blood boil. In just about every
single industry I know there is a level playing field
and competition breeds cheaper prices, better service
etc. Not in the world of bookmaking, totalizator running
and poker machines, their answer is to stamp out any
innovative competition and with the media and politicians
on side they generally win.
I
might just have to complain to Alan Fels! Sorry
I'm on my high horse but I have a serious problem
with this sort of media.
Just
a quick point to add.
The
"Interactive Gambling Act 2001" states
(3)
For the purposes of this Act, none of the following
services is a prohibited Internet gambling service:
(aa) an excluded wagering service (see section 8A);
Section
8A says
8A
Excluded wagering service
(1) For the purposes of this Act, an excluded wagering
service is:
(a) a service to the extent to which it relates to
betting on, or on a
series of, any or all of the following:
(i) a horse race;
(ii) a harness race;
(iii) a greyhound race;
(iv) a sporting event;
Let
them stick that in their pipe and smoke it!"
OZmium's
Director of Racing Services Neil Davis weighed in
with the following blast at uncompetitive racing markets.
"Bookies
can lose - particularly in metropolitan Sydney. But
it's hard to imagine Adelaide and Brisbane bookies
ever losing with their markets of 130% or more. They're
a disgrace!
Trots
and dogs bookies etc shouldn't even bother operating
- legalised rip-offs of 150% or whatever.
What
about the TABs?
1.
A payout of 59.9 cents for 50 cents is rounded down
to 55 cents and a dividend of $1.10 is declared instead
of $1.20. You've been short changed 50% of your profit!
It's illegal for any other business to round these
payments to always favour themselves. Eg. advertise
something at 51 cents and charge 55 cents.
2.
Taking your money on a bet that can lose but cannot
win. Eg. They will return $1.00 money back should
you be lucky enough to win, but take your money if
your bet loses."
We
have other letters on this issue, including a defence
of his comments as quoted in the Craig Young article
from Tim Ryan of the Australian
Bookmakers' Association Internet betting committee.
Ryan's
letter and others on the topic can be found in our
Articles
section
Back
to index
Home|FAQs|Disclaimer|Contact
Us
©2000-2012 Ozmium Pty Ltd. All rights
reserved
