[Hareeba!]

you can bet on course in the US i think

can you?
I didn't think there were any legal bookies outside of Vegas?

and no aus based bookies let you punt any sport live in play. im not interested in or bet horses, it makes the IPL and lower level tennis look non dodgy.

The bookies would all love to bet live sport. It's not them but the ignorant politicians which are stopping it.

In regard to the level of trustworthiness, don't fall for the mistake of thinking it's as bad in Oz as it is in the US.
I know several other punters who do very well on the horses and like me, find it far more rewarding than betting on sports. We couldn't do that if the game's as crooked as you suggest.

[jjgold]

usa do not have bookies at all at racetracks, its a typical tote system, even in vegas its all hooked into track pools when you make a bet, all odds the same all over usa

[Hareeba!]

usa do not have bookies at all at racetracks, its a typical tote system, even in vegas its all hooked into track pools when you make a bet, all odds the same all over usa

thanks for confirming
our system may not be perfect but it's a whole lot better than you guys have

[shari91]

you can bet on course in the US i think

and no aus based bookies let you punt any sport live in play. im not interested in or bet horses, it makes the IPL and lower level tennis look non dodgy.

Well technically you can...you just have to call it in. Which is a pita but the response times are really quick so while it's not as spot on as online live betting at say 365, it's pretty close. After all this Canbet stuff and learning how unregulated UK books really are, I really can't think of where else I'd prefer to live as a gambler. The one massive advantage Aussies have going for them is that the gambling culture is huge and isn't seen as dirty as it is most other places. That alone helps to provide a lot of pushback to pollies who float out the idea of making things more strict.

[noyb]

and learning how unregulated UK books really are

I've been betting for about 10 years. My money has been all over the world, including countries I have never ever heard of. My biggest loss ever was with Sportsalive, an Australian bookie that was supposedly regulated. I'd much rather bet in a country that doesn't pretend to regulate anything, so you know you are on your own, than one that makes you feel safe, but when things go wrong nobody cares.

What has it been since Sportsalive went down? Three years? Everyone involved denied responsibility. There was a regulatory commission who have done absolutely nothing ever, and still denies any wrongdoing. The Australian Ombudsman has been investigating for 3 entire years now, without any conclusion. I'm sorry, but I've lost my admiration for so called Australian regulation somewhere along the way.

[shari91]

I've been betting for about 10 years. My money has been all over the world, including countries I have never ever heard of. My biggest loss ever was with Sportsalive, an Australian bookie that was supposedly regulated. I'd much rather bet in a country that doesn't pretend to regulate anything, so you know you are on your own, than one that makes you feel safe, but when things go wrong nobody cares.

What has it been since Sportsalive went down? Three years? Everyone involved denied responsibility. There was a regulatory commission who have done absolutely nothing ever, and still denies any wrongdoing. The Australian Ombudsman has been investigating for 3 entire years now, without any conclusion. I'm sorry, but I've lost my admiration for so called Australian regulation somewhere along the way.

Oh I don't blame you for feeling that way! I'm under no illusions that the same thing would never happen again although I doubt many would even consider betting with a book regulated in the ACT in the future. And I guess that's the difference...books here are regulated by individual state authorities, not one overall body to oversee the whole industry like the UK so it's easy to just avoid any ACT regulated books (if they even still exist) as the other states haven't had a misstep. For me it's more that I - and it seems many others - were under the impression that the UK required books to ring fence bettors' cash when that's not the case. I personally feel more comfortable knowing that at least the requirement is there and books have to prove it as opposed to it being a voluntary gesture. After seeing the UK Gambling Commission's repeated stuff ups with Canbet I just have little faith in them anymore.

[JayZ]

Sportsalive was the example that assurances / guarantees / ring-fencing etc can be illusionary if the company concerned doesn't follow them and it isn't found out until it is too late, because the regulator never carries a can.

The UK situation is really comes down to an issue of regulation of deposit betting. There is a 150+ year experience of credit betting and a 50+ year experience of shop cash betting in the UK, as well as betting on course at racing. Under those circumstances if a bookie went down you would only be risking the stakes on your open bets, plus any outstanding unpaid winnings. If you were betting on credit you would actually get an extended period to settle as the company was being wound up. Internet betting though has been done by and large on a deposit basis, with discouragement from constantly depositing and withdrawing from the operator. The fact that they hold players' money is one of the ways it is more profitable to the bookie than the 'old' methods above. Bets were made a legal contract somewhat reluctantly in 2005, but deposit protection was never addressed. Betting is not the only example of this though - the one the UK general public is probably most familiar with was the closure of the Christmas hamper company Farepak close to Christmas which meant people never got the Christmas goodies they had been saving up for all year as a result of a bank withdrawing loan facilities. This in the end paid out 49p in the pound because its bank considered it good relations to pay up something ex gratia, plus funds from a charity. This isn't likely to happen with the collapse of a bookie.

[Hareeba!]

Oh I don't blame you for feeling that way! I'm under no illusions that the same thing would never happen again although I doubt many would even consider betting with a book regulated in the ACT in the future. And I guess that's the difference...books here are regulated by individual state authorities, not one overall body to oversee the whole industry like the UK so it's easy to just avoid any ACT regulated books (if they even still exist) as the other states haven't had a misstep. For me it's more that I - and it seems many others - were under the impression that the UK required books to ring fence bettors' cash when that's not the case. I personally feel more comfortable knowing that at least the requirement is there and books have to prove it as opposed to it being a voluntary gesture. After seeing the UK Gambling Commission's repeated stuff ups with Canbet I just have little faith in them anymore.

Yes. The ACT regulation was totally incompetent and their Ombudsman no better.
I have confidence that the NT regulation is very much more on the ball. Just a shame that all the "bookmakers" regulated by them are worthless cowards.
I too was under the false illusion that UK regulated bookies had to maintain funds in segregated accounts. I'm pretty sure the major (listed company) ones all do.

If I were owed money by SportsAlive I still wouldn't give up. Surely the Ombudsman's review has to see how poor the regulator was? If his ultimate conclusion is as it should be, the government may well be forced into compensating punters or at least there are grounds for legal action.

[tommygun]

Bookmakers licenced in both NT and ACT makes me shiver....

[JayZ]

I too was under the false illusion that UK regulated bookies had to maintain funds in segregated accounts. I'm pretty sure the major (listed company) ones all do.

William Hill, Ladbrokes, and Bet365 all do, even though the first 2 don't have a UK licence presently for their online operations.

[farmer33]

Hareeba..."I smell a vested interest in your sudden joining of SBR to post on this issue". No Vested interest mate,just setting you all straight. For a start No1bettingshop was purchased by Mark Blandford the founder of Sportingbet and the Allan Tripp never set up Sportsbet as you say,No1 stayed in Vanuatu for a year or so after being sold before coming onshore when the tax was lowered in the NT.It has since been sold to Will Hill. Matt Tripp left Sportingbet where he was head bookie to buy Sportsbet when it was dormant,(they had a US director with bad track record) with many other investors which,eventually they all sold out to P/Power. After his non compete clause finished he and others have now got hold of Beteazy. Anything else you would like to know I may be able to fill you in as I have been at the coal face of the industry for many years.

[farmer33]

Hareeba..."I smell a vested interest in your sudden joining of SBR to post on this issue". No Vested interest mate,just setting you all straight. For a start No1bettingshop was purchased by Mark Blandford the founder of Sportingbet and the Allan Tripp never set up Sportsbet as you say,No1 stayed in Vanuatu for a year or so after being sold before coming onshore when the tax was lowered in the NT.It has since been sold to Will Hill. Matt Tripp left Sportingbet where he was head bookie to buy Sportsbet when it was dormant,(they had a US director with bad track record) with many other investors which,eventually they all sold out to P/Power. After his non compete clause finished he and others have now got hold of Beteazy. Anything else you would like to know I may be able to fill you in as I have been at the coal face of the industry for many years.

[jjgold]

Books are not going to just take players that pound year after year that is horrible business practice and I would not want to play a book like that