[AusRace] MC betting

L.B.Loveday lloveday at ozemail.com.au
Wed Nov 8 11:22:58 AEDT 2017

Thanks Peter,


Yes, but the MBL only applies after 9am (2pm for night meetings).


A tome follows, but all should at least read the last paragraph.


Of the 3 avenues of appeal - NTRC, Racing NSW and Racing Victoria - my many
experiences indicate that only RV has integrity.

I had hopes for Leigh Dalton at RNSW as he was a noted punter, but amongst
his kowtowing to the Corporates were these two actions:


(1) ClassicBet cancelled my account and paid back what they claimed was my
balance (I had no way of verifying that as the account was inaccessible)


Here's the relevant part of the MBL, to the best of my knowledge:


5.7 Betting Limits 


(c) The Approval Holder must not do any act or refuse to do any act to avoid
complying with clause 5.7(a) including but not limited to: 


(1) Refusing to accept a fixed odds bet; 


(2) Closing a person's account; 


(3) Refusing to open a person's account; 


(4) Placing any restrictions on a person's account; 


(5) Refusing to lay fixed odds to any person when those fixed odds are
Publicly Displayed; 


(6) Laying lesser odds to a person than those Publicly Displayed; 


Dalton ruled that ClassicBet did not close my account to avoid compliance -
they would say that wouldn't they, but closing it did avoid complying so it
would depend on an interpretation of why they did close it, especially as
the only bets I was allowed at that time were those under the MBL -  but
refused to tell me why they did. If they are allowed to put up any Mickey
Mouse reason and have Racing NSW accept it (eg "We don't like him ") there
is no point to the legislation.


(2) As I pointed out, William Hill offered me 26.0 on #24 in the MC while
they "Publically Displayed" 61.0. They did not lay it to me of course, as I
am not stupid enough to take it, but others might, and yes, it was before
9am when WH are entitled by law to not take my bet, nor those of the many
others, but offering manifestly such disparate odds to different people is a
strike against the integrity of racing, and on a previous occasion I filed a
Racing Integrity Information and Complaint Form, but Dalton refused to even
consider it and told me to fill in a MBL Complaints Report, which would have
(p=1.001) have met the same fate as my many other complaints. It was NOT an
MBL issue, as Dalton "surely" knew.

Under certain circumstances (more later) bookmakers are allowed to cancel
bets when the odds laid were in error and that error was "manifest or
obvious" whatever that means - I may rate something 4.00, you 21.00 and
Sportsbet offer 10.00, so which of us, if any, have made an error that is
"manifest or obvious"? Horses are not blackjack decks or dice.

Racing Victoria I have found to be fair and to actively pursue complaints
with the aim of achieving proper outcomes - CrownBet have paid unlawfully
declined bets and altered their software as a result of RV's actions on my


NTRC, I figure almost everyone would know are incompetent and, or, biased
(corrupted someone suggested on Ausrace way back by Corporate Boxes at the
Japan Cup, MC.).

To my praise of a Corporate, faint though it may be 


Luxbet cancelled a series of bets I placed, all mid-range, only one to win
more than $1,000.

Here's the relevant section of the T&C (standard for NT-registered


1.2.6 Incorrect Betting Information 

Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these Betting Rules, if
Luxbet publishes, posts or quotes any incorrect betting information for any
sporting event, such as posting wrong dividends or lines, then regardless of
the cause or source of such error; 

         (a) Error identified prior to the commencement of the event:

If the error is identified prior to the commencement of the event and
notified by Luxbet to the most recent telephone or facsimile contact number
or email address supplied by a Client, whose wager on that event has been
accepted or confirmed by Luxbet, such wagers will be void. 

If the wager is part of a multiple bet, the wager will then be re-calculated
excluding the event to which the error relates. 

        (b) Error identified after the commencement of the event:

If the error is identified only after the commencement of the event or for
any other reason not notified to the Client's point of contact prior to
commencement of the event, the wager on the event shall stand. 

The only exception to this is where Luxbet can demonstrate that the error
was manifest or obvious, or that the Client otherwise should reasonably have
been aware of the error when the wager was placed, in which case Luxbet
reserves the right to void such wagers. 


Luxbet agreed they cancelled before the commencement of the events, and did
not notify me, but claimed "a manifest error, and our systems were
displaying incorrect prices, your bets have been void under 1.2.6". 


You don't have to be a lawyer, not even a bush lawyer, to understand that
"demonstrate that the error was manifest or obvious" applies, logically and
legally, only to (b) and not to my case.


My rebuttal was passed to "management" and "management" rang me and honoured
the bets - the nearest any other Corporate has come was Sportsbet giving me
$600 bonus bets in lieu of dudding me $600. It's not quite the same, but
likely they can't do the math, and as I used them on longer-priced bets, it
got close. Betzero, again living up to their reputation, last week informed
me that a $1.23 bet "will be settled at the revised odds" , but gave me the
opportunity to cancel. Yes, Betzero entered into protracted communications
about a $1.23 bet. PS, the horse lost.


So, Thumbs Up to Luxbet.


I'd determined that I was going to make a stand if Lux did not pay up, and
NTRC backed them (1.0000001), by taking it to court. Apart from the plain
reading of 1.2.6, I had the following argument: each of my bets with Lux was
individually evaluated and approved by a member of their staff, so if the
alleged errors were manifest and, or, not obvious to highly trained staff,
experts in markets, mathematical whiz-kids, how could they be obvious to a
septuagenarian who has trouble seeing the screen and counts on his fingers? 


Now contrast Lux's action with NTRC's ludicrous ruling in my complaint
against WH - they ruled that **even if** WH did not notify me  " to the most
recent telephone or facsimile contact number or email address supplied by a
Client" - I had proved that they did not by screen shots - the odds WH
offered were "manifestly wrong", and "established" that by comparison with
TopSports FINAL odds, the DAY AFTER I bet. NTRC advised me to get legal
advice, but it's those clowns who should get legal advice; can anyone find a
lawyer who will say " The only exception" rider applies to (a)?


Of course I seek to bet at odds that are "in error", viz longer than I
consider the chances of winning to be - does anyone take odds that they
think are "unders"?


Here's a case study - yesterday at 8:30am, BetZero had Sunshine Coast 6/11
at 4.60, while Sportsbet, Lux, WH, Crown. all had it odds-on. It was not
until 10:30 that Bzero dropped the price to 2.30 in one fell swoop. Was the
4.60 a manifest or obvious error? The difference 4.60 to odds-on was much
greater than the WH/TopSport differential on which NTRC wrongly disallowed
my complaint. PS - it got out to 4.40 and lost. So wtf are "errors" in odds?
Why can Corporates cancel and punters can't? Should I not have been able to
have cancelled a bet on #24 with WH at 21.0 if I'd been stupid enough to
take it (and that is surely what they hope; why else offer the bet?).










From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Peter Dean
Sent: Monday, 6 November 2017 10:31 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] MC betting



Have you tried this process....




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171108/67776828/attachment.html>

More information about the Racing mailing list