Skip to main content

Betfair in trouble for 'encouraging' underage gambling

Betfair love promoting their young sponsored poker stars - the only problem is, when one of them has an online handle of 'Annette_15', it's very easy to look upon her as being underage, or at least the company is encouraging underage gambling.

Betting ad banned for encouraging underage gambling

Seriously, you'd thought someone would have been able to figure that one out in-house without needing to be embarrassed by it. The username is a giveaway and she doesn't exactly look 30 in that photo. Drop the reference to the username and the ad is probably fine. It can always be referenced elsewhere on the site, rather than in the part answerable to strict advertising standards.

The story goes that soon-to-be 21yo Annette Obrestad, winner of the World Series of Poker Europe 2007, when she had just turned 19, began playing poker online when she was just 15 - not at Betfair I care to add. She played only play for fun events (which still should have been prohibited as a minor), but was so good at it, she never had to make a deposit and was eventually able to cash a sizeable sum onto real money sites when she was old enough to play for money.

It was when she got down to the final table at WSOPE 2007 that Betfair stepped in and signed her up as a sponsored player. Due to American law, it will be another two years before she can head to Las Vegas for the regular World Series of Poker.

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