LAST week I asked whether imposing Minmum Betting Limits (MBL) on bookmakers, as is the case in New South Wales, would be workable in Britain and Ireland.

A lot has happened since pen was put to paper on that article, with a new firm called Black Type Bet launching last Wednesday with a promise to lay their horse racing odds to all-comers up to certain liabilities, although there was a proviso to that, with a “three strikes and you’re out” caveat to those using the firm to profit purely from arbitrage opportunities with exchanges.

Quite how that will work in practice is open to debate, but the very fact that a firm should make promises to lay bets rather than seek to gain market share from unsustainable bonus offers is welcome in today’s marketplace.

On Thursday, as predicted in last week’s column, Racing Victoria became the second Australian jurisdiction to launch an MBL code on bookmakers, with the provisions largely in line with those put forward by Racing NSW.

The press release did contain a summary of the framework, which makes intriguing reading, especially in light of how the relationship between punters and bookmakers works here:

”As part of the framework, an approved WSP must not do any act or refuse to do any act to avoid complying with the bet limits, including but not limited to:

Refusing to accept a fixed odds bet

Closing a person’s account

Refusing to open a person’s account

Placing any restrictions on a person’s account in relation to Victorian thoroughbred racing product

Refusing to lay fixed odds to any person when those fixed odds are publicly displayed

Laying lesser odds to a person than those publicly displayed.

Any other act or refusal to do an act in order to avoid these provisions”

These are deemed to be cornerstones of an ethical arrangement to lay bets, and much of the argument which has caused this legislation has been based on whether it can be viewed as an ethical, or moral, practice to seek bets only from those who are proven to lose.

BETTING LANDSCAPE

This chimes with responsible gambling initiatives in a way that is entirely alien to the betting landscape here.

There is no shortage of merchandising promoting responsible gambling here, but very few questions are asked as to whether the way betting companies operate is genuinely ethical.

Betting is supposed to be fun, we’re told, but given that the only business encouraged by firms is from inveterate losers, the message seems to be that the only way to know if you’re having fun is whether you’re doing your conkers or not.

I popped into my local BetFred today, where someone was playing two FOBTs simultaneously. He got a bit sweary towards the end of his visit, but I can only presume he was having the time of his life.

It’s also interesting to listen to the language Racing Victoria use when talking about both bookmakers and punters, who are referred to universally as “stakeholders” in Thursday’s statement.

This is another huge departure from the terminology used in this parish. The thought of punters as shareholders is anathema to British thinking in particular, and that is a large part of the problem we have here.

As long as bookmakers are allowed to set their own agenda, then there can be precious little progress in issues affecting the robustness of the betting market, and make no mistake, this isn’t about pandering to a minority who are of no significance to the sport, but it strikes at the very heart of racing, and its viability as both a betting product and a sport.

As I mentioned last week, the provision of MBL is a boon not just to professional gamblers, but to the firms who embrace such change and seek to make it work, and as a result, a big benefit to betting turnover and revenue, which in turn leads to a bigger pot of money for racing.

ATTRACTIVE

That is a virtuous circle, with bigger turnover meaning stronger and more reliable markets which, by definition, make betting more attractive for value-sensitive customers.

That is demonstrated by the situation in New South Wales, where SportsBet (Paddy Power/Betfair’s fixed odds business in Australia) have embraced the new policy, whereas William Hill, under the guidance of Tom Waterhouse, have dragged their heels, allegedly citing fear of organised crime and money laundering to keep accounts closed and essentially ignore the MBL provision.

It’s remarkable to see that in the first quarter of 2016, SportsBet saw a 23% increase in stakes compared to the same period of 2015, with a fall in profit margin, but an increase in net revenue on sports betting of 17%.

William Hill saw turnover up 8% but revenue actually fall by 22% - that is to say that a risk averse policy has not improved either margin or bottom line profit.

Hills have seen their market share shrink by 5% in the same period, and while there are many factors in play, and the figures cannot be seen as conclusive, there is enough in them to question whether restricting customers is in any way beneficial to the business.

Similarly, there are a variety of reasons why horse-race betting represents a much smaller part of bookmaker turnover now than was the case in the 1990s, but a policy of closing and restricting accounts is one of the reasons why revenue from horse racing has fallen through the floor, and now seems a good time to question whether such practices are outdated, if not downright dangerous.