AFTER the BetBright debacle, it probably shouldn’t come as a massive surprise to hear of another bookmaker drawing stumps, and once again 188Bet have taken the decision that ante-post bets are there to be cancelled at the firm’s sole discretion.

In the first instance, it needs to be pointed out that 188Bet have decided to honour ante-post bets which are due to be settled by midsummer, and that means they have done the right thing by dealing correctly with 99% of their liabilities.

There may be some outstanding bets beyond that (2022 World Cup, anyone?), but the majority of long-term bets with British-facing sportsbooks will focus on seasonal sports, particularly football divisions and competitions.

In that regard, the firm in question, unlike BetBright, are not trying to avoid ugly liabilities, but simply looking to draw a line under a failed venture.

Unlike online casinos, sportsbooks do not provide a simple and reliable profit for bookmakers, although many still misunderstand the line from the late John Banks that a betting shop is a “licence to print money”. That was almost 50 years ago, and times have changed for both punters and bookmakers.

VOIDING BETS

So, 188Bet are not knocking punters, and those with outstanding bets beyond the start of July can take a refund and reinvest at similar odds elsewhere as a rule.

There is a feeling that something bigger is coming in this regard, and the revelation that the Gambling Commission either have no power over, or see no problem with the unilateral voiding of bets means we are bound to see this ploy tried again and again.

Have a look at an odds-comparison website and you’ll find that although a number of firms have disappeared in recent months, either through mergers or ceasing to operate, the grid doesn’t get any smaller, and you will find several firms you’ve probably never heard of filling the gaps.

Is there due diligence carried out to determine these firms are going to both lay bets and pay them, and can we be confident that a firm which seems to have sprung up overnight will still be operating in a year’s time?

This has never been certain, as the growing pile of defunct bookmakers continues to grow, but punters are now more worried than ever that if they place a bet online they are taking not one, but two significant gambles.

LICENCING

Firms looking to operate in Britain must satisfy the Gambling Commission that they are fit to hold a licence, and that is some comfort, but although the GC take a strong view that the terms and conditions set out by all firms should be open and fair.

The fact that they don’t seem to have a strong view about obviously unfair terms, such as the binding nature of a bet as contract between two parties, which is pretty fundamental to the process, means that more firms will simply include a clause saying that they reserve the right to cancel any bet at their discretion.

This, in my opinion, is an insult not only to punters, but to every honest bookmaker who has ever stood a bet knowing that losing means paying up with a smile, not wriggling out with a sneer.

There should either be an amendment to the Gambling Act which categorically sets in stone the principles set out by Messrs Tattersall et al in the 19th century, or the Gambling Commission must take a stance that any firm seeking to include such a clause in their terms is automatically fined or has their licence to operate suspended for a period to be determined, with a holding page explaining that they are barred from accepting bets because of trying to impose unfair terms on their customers.

GOOD FAITH

Good faith is an enormously important aspect of the relationship between punter and bookmaker, and bad faith should be held fully to account, for the benefit of all.

It’s also in the interest of firms to actively promote trust, and even as I write this, an announcement has been made that outstanding bets from the disgraced BetBright brand are being honoured by former rivals BetVictor.

This is clearly something the latter company does not have to do, but like a lot of longstanding bookmaking businesses, they are a traditional firm with a reputation for trust and fair play, and stepping in as they have helps set them apart from the crowd.

It will cost them money, but will gain them much in terms of goodwill, and I’m certainly more likely to divert my business there as a result.