Tom Waterhouse to CEO of Will Hill Aussie brands.

[Optional]

TOM Waterhouse gave up a $65 million potential payday yesterday in order to accept his appointment as the Australian boss of UK gambling giant William Hill.

The 32-year-old son of *racing royalty — trainer Gai Waterhouse and bookmaker Robbie — will head up William Hill’s Australian companies Sportingbet, Centrebet and TomWaterhouse.com.au.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uk-betting-giant-william-hill-takes-a-punt-on-tom-waterhouse-to-be-their-australian-boss/story-fni0cx12-1226992766553

Smart move to have a high profile Aussie seen to be making decisions.

[Hareeba!]

TOM Waterhouse gave up a $65 million potential payday yesterday in order to accept his appointment as the Australian boss of UK gambling giant William Hill.

The 32-year-old son of *racing royalty — trainer Gai Waterhouse and bookmaker Robbie — will head up William Hill’s Australian companies Sportingbet, Centrebet and TomWaterhouse.com.au.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uk-betting-giant-william-hill-takes-a-punt-on-tom-waterhouse-to-be-their-australian-boss/story-fni0cx12-1226992766553

Smart move to have a high profile Aussie seen to be making decisions.

even such an unpopular one?

[Optional]

He's really only seriously unpopular among non gamblers I think.

For gamblers, having him saying we are an Australian run operation so have more Australian values than the other UK outfits, will play well I think.

[Hareeba!]

He's really only seriously unpopular among non gamblers I think.

For gamblers, having him saying we are an Australian run operation so have more Australian values than the other UK outfits, will play well I think.

Well he's very seriously unpopular with me.
But then again I don't like being referred to as a gambler.
So maybe you have a point?

[shari91]

Very happy about this. Much prefer him over someone from the UK who doesn't know the market or attitude of Aussies or someone with a business degree who knows little about punting. Added bonus he said there will be no more ads. That's what pissed people off. Give him a year or two and people will be supporting him now that he's not in their face all the time.

[Optional]

Well he's very seriously unpopular with me.
But then again I don't like being referred to as a gambler.
So maybe you have a point?

I bet a lot of books don't call you one either

[Hareeba!]

Very happy about this. Much prefer him over someone from the UK who doesn't know the market or attitude of Aussies or someone with a business degree who knows little about punting. Added bonus he said there will be no more ads. That's what pissed people off. Give him a year or two and people will be supporting him now that he's not in their face all the time.

I think what pissed people off was that the ads said he knows what punters want.
But he failed miserably to deliver on what we want!

[Optional]

Well he's very seriously unpopular with me.
But then again I don't like being referred to as a gambler.
So maybe you have a point?

Had a thought about this Hareeba.

If you do not consider yourself to be gambling, why do you think you have a right to complain about bookmakers not wanting to gamble against you? After all they are licensed to provide gambling services only.

[Hareeba!]

Had a thought about this Hareeba.

If you do not consider yourself to be gambling, why do you think you have a right to complain about bookmakers not wanting to gamble against you? After all they are licensed to provide gambling services only.

My view on the definition is that gambling is a pursuit which relies on luck for success.
What I at least attempt to do is rely on maths rather than luck for success.
Which is precisely what bookies do.
I have every right to complain about companies which are granted a licence to make a book and service the public but then choose to discriminate against those who attempt to play them at their own game.

[jjgold]

He will do what corporate tells him

If they see too much risk they will tighten the reigns on him

[Optional]

My view on the definition is that gambling is a pursuit which relies on luck for success.
What I at least attempt to do is rely on maths rather than luck for success.
Which is precisely what bookies do.
I have every right to complain about companies which are granted a licence to make a book and service the public but then choose to discriminate against those who attempt to play them at their own game.

I was more asking a philosophical question than trying to suggest you had no right.

I get why you don't consider yourself a gambler. But if you really are not gambling, ie not taking any risk, I think the same mentality that says bookies should accept all bettors can be used to justify why they should have a right to not accept you.

ie: Both sides need to be taking some risk of losing.

[Hareeba!]

I was more asking a philosophical question than trying to suggest you had no right.

I get why you don't consider yourself a gambler. But if you really are not gambling, ie not taking any risk, I think the same mentality that says bookies should accept all bettors can be used to justify why they should have a right to not accept you.

ie: Both sides need to be taking some risk of losing.

Never said I don't engage in any risk.
Anything one does in life has a risk.
Of course there is risk in every bet on both sides.
What I am trying to explain is the difference between a punter (gambler) who relies soley on luck such as playing casino games and betting on his favourite teams or horses with nice names/colourful silks etc and one who looks for a mathematical edge to deliver a profit.
Clearly the latter is what bookmakers do.
History has proved that there are risks as many have indeed gone broke. As have punters who thought they had an edge.

If the taking of a risk necessarily defines the activity as gambling then we are all gamblers as there's nothing in life which doesn't involve some element of risk. The term thus becomes superfluous?

[Al Masters]

My view on the definition is that gambling is a pursuit which relies on luck for success.
What I at least attempt to do is rely on maths rather than luck for success.
Which is precisely what bookies do.
I have every right to complain about companies which are granted a licence to make a book and service the public but then choose to discriminate against those who attempt to play them at their own game.

You seem like a knowledgeable person yet this is like the 3rd thread where you use the word maths
it's math non plural..no such word as maths.

Not trying to be an english teacher just friendly.

[Hareeba!]

You seem like a knowledgeable person yet this is like the 3rd thread where you use the word maths
it's math non plural..no such word as maths.

Not trying to be an english teacher just friendly.

My problem Al is that I was taught the language by an ENGLISH teacher.

Your problem I suspect is that you're a Yank and subscribe to the bastardised spelling of so many words which your countrymen insist on inflicting on the English language.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/math-maths/

The full form of the word in MATHEMATICS

I believe the more logical abbreviation is thus MATHS

[Optional]

@AlMasters... I think it's 'maths' in most other English speaking countries, but even I use 'math' a lot on this forum as I have seen from other comments like yours that 'maths' obviously scans badly to a USA educated brain, whilst reading 'math' instead of what we have been brought up with isn't as grammatically jarring.

Never said I don't engage in any risk.
Anything one does in life has a risk.
Of course there is risk in every bet on both sides.
What I am trying to explain is the difference between a punter (gambler) who relies soley on luck such as playing casino games and betting on his favourite teams or horses with nice names/colourful silks etc and one who looks for a mathematical edge to deliver a profit.
Clearly the latter is what bookmakers do.
History has proved that there are risks as many have indeed gone broke. As have punters who thought they had an edge.

If the taking of a risk necessarily defines the activity as gambling then we are all gamblers as there's nothing in life which doesn't involve some element of risk. The term thus becomes superfluous?

If you genuinely do have a mathematical edge then it may not meet the dictionary definition of gambling. By Mirriam Webster;

¹gam·ble

verb \ˈgam-bəl\ : to play a game in which you can win or lose money or possessions : to bet money or other valuable things
: to risk losing (an amount of money) in a game or bet
: to risk losing (something valuable or important) in order to do or achieve something




And AFAIK, it's a key requirement under legislation that books are licensed to 'gamble', under Aussie law at very least.

[jjgold]

books here to make money period

UK books are masters of risk management period

If I owned company I do what makes me the most money

[superhans]

Exactly. Whilst I hate getting limited/banned. At least that I know they arnt going to go bust with my money

[Dr.Gonzo]

Very happy about this. Much prefer him over someone from the UK who doesn't know the market or attitude of Aussies or someone with a business degree who knows little about punting. Added bonus he said there will be no more ads. That's what pissed people off. Give him a year or two and people will be supporting him now that he's not in their face all the time.

Are you serious? He's just the front for Robbie and I'll be amazed if he can even think for himself after the umbilical cord has been cut. He's as socially obtuse as his mother.

[Dr.Gonzo]

He's really only seriously unpopular among non gamblers I think.

For gamblers, having him saying we are an Australian run operation so have more Australian values than the other UK outfits, will play well I think.

He's universally disliked, I don't know what country you're living in.

It's usually the Smith/Waterhouse arrogance that rubs people the wrong way.

Personally, I don't like all the chest beating he did back in the day about booking action only to fold and run a joke operation. I honestly expected something more like Merlehan after all that talk.

[Al Masters]

My problem Al is that I was taught the language by an ENGLISH teacher.

Your problem I suspect is that you're a Yank and subscribe to the bastardised spelling of so many words which your countrymen insist on inflicting on the English language.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/math-maths/

The full form of the word in MATHEMATICS

I believe the more logical abbreviation is thus MATHS

I see you have the ability to be a rude wise guy.

Could have been easier to say here in Australia we use maths,in North America you use math.

I would of stood corrected,but no you the wise guy who doesn't gamble and is constantly on a gambling forum has to throw out wise ass comments blaming a whole country for fuckking up the english language.

You then put up a link explaining both are right just depends on which country you're from then you say
"I believe the more logical abbreviation is MATHS"...


You seem to have a dislke for Americans,if it makes you feel any better i'm not American and went to Mcgill University in Quebec, now you can find things to hate about Canadians, starting with me.

[Hareeba!]

You seem to have a dislke for Americans,if it makes you feel any better i'm not American and went to Mcgill University in Quebec, now you can find things to hate about Canadians, starting with me.

No. I have known many fine Americans and my mother was part Canadian. I have nothing against them personally.
But I do detest what America has done to the English language. Unfortunately because of the sheer volume of US film and television it becomes quite pervasive and difficult for our young to avoid picking up the bad stuff.
So perhaps that might explain my attitude a bit when an American tries to teach me English.
Sorry if I offended you.