Skip to main content

the reason why betting institutions MUST have segregated accts for customers and operations

Prime example of why America doesn't allow widespread gambling - they simply have no idea how to look after the public interest.


NH enacts rules to protect track bettors

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire has approved stricter gambling regulations to protect bettors if state dog or horse tracks go bankrupt.

The rules could have saved bettors at the bankrupt Hinsdale Greyhound Park a half-million dollars they had in betting accounts at the track.

The Racing and Charitable Gaming Commission approved the regulations on Tuesday. They will require the state's three remaining greyhound and harness racing tracks to maintain accounts at state financial institutions that could be used to pay back bettors and other creditors in bankruptcy or closure.

The Lodge at Belmont, Rockingham Park and Seabrook Greyhound track have until March 1 to open the accounts.

The Hinsdale track filed for bankruptcy last month and abruptly closed. The track used money from the betting accounts to pay employees.

----

That last point is absolutely shocking. Australian betting firms must deposit large security bonds with local authorities so that customers can be paid out in the case of going bankrupt. Betting exchanges must have client funds on deposit and operating funds completely segregated. Other firms often don't have to face such tight scrutiny, hence the long list of online bookies (and brokerages in the case of BetBrokers, exchanges in the case of SportingOptions) who have gone belly up without customers receiving a penny.

The entry barriers to getting a betting licence must be very high so that the fly-by-night cowboys with shoddy business models don't get in.

Comments

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

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

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