Skip to main content

have WillHill abused their duty of care?

Big story this week in the UK press is of a leading greyhound trainer suing bookmaker William Hill for £2m, after the punter had self-excluded himself.

Daily Mail article

Gambling unfortunately attracts people with addictive personalities and people who simply can't stop betting, despite what their bank balance tells them. Stories from casinos in particular where gamblers simply bet their lives away hurt the entire industry which works hard to keep itself above the seedy reputation earned by a tiny minority of establishments. Companies in the better-regulated jurisdictions all have responsible gambling policies, where problem gamblers can stop themselves from betting with a company via self-exclusion measures.

The punter here alleges he started gambling again just weeks after he sought self-exclusion with Hills, and they agreed to it. Then he proceeded to lose £2m fairly quickly. It's easy to blame the punter for his lack of self-discipline, but if William Hill have committed to stopping a punter needing serious help, then they should be severely penalised for their irresponsible behaviour.

William Hill are apparently the easiest bookmaker to open multiple accounts with to take advantage of free bets or if you've been closed down for winning too much. That's pretty ordinary for such a 'professional' organisation.

This will be a landmark case for the industry as will the Australian case against Crown Casino.

Ninemsn article

Gambling firms do have a duty of care and cowboys who think they can exploit confessed problem gamblers should be kicked out of the industry.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term 'Ponzi scheme' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up.

So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done.

The…

damage control when trading goals

When trades go bad, some people will say cut your losses immediately, others will recommend having a bit of patience as events tend to level out (i.e. games with two goals in the first 10 mins never end up with 18 goals in 90 minutes). This is something I like to do on certain matches.

Background:
1. You've backed Under 2.5 goals, trying to nick a few ticks at a time as the clock ticks.
2. You've been caught out by a goal.
3. The market has gone sharply against you.

On this particular match from a couple of weeks ago, there was an early goal (sixth minute) before I got involved. The period immediately after an early goal regularly shows a sharp drop in the Under price, so I was trying to capitalise on that. But Watford then scored again after 14 minutes. The Back price I took (3.95) was now out to 12 - I could close out for a big loss (not my style) or wait and wait for the price to come back to somewhere I could close out for minimal damage. But at 2-0 after 15 minutes, it w…