Skip to main content

French sports betting regulations aren't working

Complaints this week in Monaco at the first gaming industry conference centred upon France with Mangas (BetClic, Expect, bet-at-home) CEO Nicolas Beraud claiming the anti-problem gambling directives from the French government are actually having the reverse effect - players lose their money quicker with higher margins and thus want to bet more as they chase their losses....

French player returns uncompetitive says Mangas boss

Mangas Gaming chief executive Nicolas Beraud has called for the French authorities to increase what it currently allows to pay back to players, as the current 85% limit is failing in its publicly declared aim of protecting the consumer.

Speaking yesterday on the Online Sports & Horse Betting Markets panel at France’s first ever egaming conference, Monaco iGaming Exchanges, Beraud said: “Today, we cannot give better than an 85% return to the player, which means the odds are not competitive compared to other markets. It is an incentive for players to try to play on foreign websites, and the customers can lose their money much more quickly than previously.

“The excuse to have this 85% was to protect the consumer, but what we are seeing is the customer is instead losing his money more quickly and is actually playing more.”

Speaking on the same panel, Emmanuel de Rohan Chabot, chief executive of horse racing tote operator ZEturf observed of current tax and payback conditions that if “there wasn’t such a difference in pressure between the legal and illegal worlds, it would not be so hard to keep the punter inside the French market, and it is a hard job.”

Chabot told the audience: “In between the ZEturf.com and the ZEturf.fr we are on now, the average punter is losing €110 a month when he used to lose just €60 a month. The objective of reducing gaming addiction and risk is clearly a failure on that point, so I am completely with Nicolas on that one.”


Of course, from the side of the monopoly, another panellist blamed the problem on lack of sanctions against firms not licensed in France, which completely misses the point. Fat margins do nothing to protect punters - gambling addicts are more often, but not always, people with poor comprehension of the percentages behind gambling. While they still think they have a chance of winning, they will keep playing, and the more expensive it is in terms of margins, the more it will cost them in the long run.

An 85% return to punters is poor (117.6% overrround if you prefer to see it the other way around). That's uncompetitive on 1x2 football markets, so it's completely pointless for two-way sports like tennis( - although PMU.fr are listing tennis h2h markets at 112% so there may be some concession for two-way markets?).

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