Skip to main content

Betfair and Sportingbet take on NSW government

About time too. The ridiculous protectionist advertising laws in NSW are being taken to task in the Federal Court. Read the story here from the Virtual Formguide.

What's the betting on NSW getting embarrassed like the WA Govt just a few months ago??
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sandracer20 July 2008 at 10:12

    Sportingbet are a terrible company who deserve no day in court for anything anyone else does.

    Rather sadly, Betfair don't have many marketing scruples are going the same way when it comes to treating all punters fairly without waffling on about advantage players having the audacity to beat the house.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scott20 July 2008 at 12:57

    The legislation is unconstitutional, and the govt have relied on Australian bookmakers being too small to contest it in a Federal Court. This case, as a sequel to the Betfair v WA case, has the potential to change the landscape of Australian wagering forever, and for the good of punters.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sandracer20 July 2008 at 13:16

    I guess it takes firms with deep pockets to better things for the punter somewhat, admittedly in the pursuit of more profits for deep pockets.

    I just have a bit of a problem being grateful, when these big firms are allegedly (imo) ripping off the little guy.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur
14 comments
Read more

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla
12 comments
Read more

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. T
10 comments
Read more