Racing NSW and the punter's right to a decent bet
The big news is betting circles lately is the Racing NSW decision to force all wagering organisations licensed to bet on NSW racing to lay a decent bet! This is to be enforced via the racefields legislation which allows the governing body of NSW Racing to control who bets on their product. The debate has gotten louder over recent years as traditional bookmaking has gone out the window, replaced by European corporate beancounters who only want to lay bets to people who lose money hand over fist, aka mugs.
RacingNSW set new minimum bet guidelines for corporate bookmakers from September 1
AUSTRALIA’S biggest corporate bookmakers will be made to stand to lose a minimum of $2000 in a single wager on a NSW metropolitan thoroughbred race, RacingNSW has announced.
In response to claims corporate bookmakers are refusing to accept bets from successful punters, RacingNSW will impose a minimum bet limit from September 1.
Wagering operators with turnover of more than $5 million will have to bet a punter to lose $2000 at a city meeting and $1000 at provincial and country fixtures.
Bookmakers with less than $5 million turnover will have to bet their customers to lose $1000 on all thoroughbred meetings.
....
Under the terms of the minimum bet guidelines, wagering operators will not be able to close a punter’s betting account, refuse to accept a new account or restrict a punter to avoid complying with the new rules.
“All punters should be able to place a legitimate bet on NSW thoroughbred races and should not be discriminated against by having their accounts closed or bets refused simply because they are successful,” V’landys said.
The Australian betting industry operates differently to envious nations abroad - the racing industry holds the power. All bookmakers are licensed by government departments which are responsible for racing and wagering - it's in the name of the minister's portfolio, just slightly different from state to state. Racing holds no such power in the UK, in fact it failed in the European Court a decade ago when it tried to charge for its data.
On-course bookmakers in Australia have always been forced to lay a bet to any individual to lose X, an amount which varies by the strength of the meeting and their position in the ring. As the industry evolved and telephone bookmakers started up in lower-tax jurisdictions such as the Northern Territory, corporate bookmakers were never bound by such restrictions. The NT Govt tried to enforce one but bookies just found ways around it, by removing certain product types for winning clients or simply closing accounts. When punters pushed for the NT Dept of Gaming and Racing to have some balls and stick up for punters, after all, they are there to protect the rights of punters, the corporate bookies lobbied against it and quelle surprise, the paper-shufflers caved in and dropped the rule altogether.
Racing NSW supremo Peter V'Landys, whom I have previously criticised heavily, has to be admired for his stance here. The rules seem fair - at $2000, the risk amount on a single bet to anyone is less than a 'rails' bookmaker has to stand on raceday. The restrictions only apply from 9am on raceday (2pm for night meetings), not to early trading - and in Australia with the brilliant system of 72hr decs, markets go up as early as Wednesday afternoon for the major Aussie raceday of Saturday - which will allow bookmakers to let punters hammer the market into place before they are compelled to lay the larger wagers. (Note that on-course bookies are only subject to these rules once they open their market - usually 30mins before a race). A bookmaker cannot close/refuse an account from anyone unless they have a criminal record (doubt that would stop them unless it was an integrity risk) or they were a 'bowler' - someone betting for another to hide their identity. Why they chose $2000 is interesting - bookies pitched lower, the punters' lobby group pitched lower, while the racecourse 'rails' bookie must bet to $5000. Was V'Landys gunning for higher turnover or trying to find a level which would annoy the corporate bookies but not enough to bring in the lawyers? Hat tip to Racetrack Ralphy for that last hypothesis.
Read More
Topic Author
