Are minimum bet laws working? One punter’s experiences

As a successful (ie, winning) punter, Steve has long had accounts restricted and closed by betting operators. So for him, the introduction of minimum bet laws was most welcome… though the reality hasn’t always been as positive as he’d hoped.

Here he shares some of his experiences with minimum bet laws disputes… and he’s offered to help out other punters who may need it. See below…

We have a full guide to minimum bet laws by state and code right here.

Minimum bet laws

First of all, state racing bodies need to be commended for bringing in these rules because before them, punters had virtually no rights.

However, it’s no good just having rules. They need to be enforced.

The rules can be confusing for both punters and bookies, because they vary from state to state and by racing code. There’s three racing codes and eight racing jurisdictions in Australia, so the number of different MBL rulebooks does add up.

Most bookies do the right thing

Most bookmakers obey the rules that are in place and, in my experience, some even go beyond them.

TAB, Sportsbet and Ladbrokes have been the best in my experience, and will accept bets for MBL amounts from the time they first display odds.

What do you do when the rules aren’t followed?

The process for making a complaint is as follows:

1. Try and resolve the matter with the bookmaker directly.
2. If that fails, the next step is to file a complaint with the relevant state racing body using a web form. Most state bodies have web forms for handling complaints and typically they are dealt with in a reasonable manner. Here’s an example on the Racing Victoria website.
3. If that fails, the next step would be via a court or tribunal. I’ve never gone down this path because of time and money.

In my experience, the state racing bodies do investigate claims properly, but when things get harder they generally side with bookmakers.

One interesting thing to note is that if you are forced to take your claim to the next level, it becomes a case against the state racing body rather than the bookmaker itself. This is because the bookmakers don’t have a contractual obligation to the punter to accept their bet. The obligation lies between the state racing body and the bookmaker. Therefore, it becomes a “misleading conduct” claim against the state racing body for making the claim that bets will be accepted when they weren’t.

I’ve challenged a number of bookmakers when they have rejected my bets, with varying outcomes… some have accepted the error and paid me out, while others have been referred to the relevant racing body. Here’s a few observations from my experiences…

Referred to a trader…

Many punters will know this situation. Whether they actually tell you live it’s being referred, or your bet just remains “pending” for an extended time… your account has been flagged to not have bets accepted automatically, and they’re reviewed by a trader who decides whether or not to accept them.

Of course, this should be an automated accept if the bet falls inside MBL regulations, but with many bookies it’s not. I’ve found that referring bets to a human can be risky for bookies, as the trader needs to know all the rules across all the states for all the codes. This can lead to errors, with bets being rejected against MBL rules.

Even when MBL rules are automated in a bookie’s system, I’ve seen examples where it’s wrong and has had to be fixed. Again, there are so many different versions of the rules and it’s confusing.

“Using automation”

Sometimes, certain bookies seem to try anything and everything to avoid taking your bets. I’ve been accused by one bookie of using “automation” (ie, a bot) to place bets, which is against MBL rules. I wasn’t, so followed it up. It’s a good example of the lengths you may have to go to in order to make progress on a MBL claim…

1. The bookmaker claimed to have a website log showing 47,000 hits to their website and 539 login attempts over a single night. And they wouldn’t send me the log, as it was “commercially sensitive”.
2. Most state racing bodies took the word of the bookie and took no action against them. It was hard for me to prove I wasn’t using automation, and none of the state racing bodies would provide me with the website log sent to them by the bookie. Under the rules, the bookies can reject my bet if they have “reason for concern” that automation is being used.
3. I applied for access to the log files using a “Freedom of Information” or “Right to Information” request. This is the legal process of obtaining information you are entitled to. I did this via NSW and Queensland, and it took about 2 months to complete.
4. The NSW request failed because they agreed with the bookie that the information was “commercially sensitive”. However, the Queensland request succeeded (even though it was identical) and they gave me access to the website log.
5. In the meantime, Racing Victoria had discovered quite a few claims around the same time as mine, and were able to determine that the website log was the result of a technical error
6. Eventually my claim for $500 was accepted and the bookie paid.

Trying to win more than the allowed amount

This is another complexity and unfortunately, rules vary again. I once had a bet on a Queensland greyhound meeting rejected, and I was unsuccessful with challenging it because the minimum bet amount is $500, but I was trying to win $560.

Under Racing Queensland’s rules, bookmakers can reject the whole bet if the risk is over the $500 limit. In other states, the bookies must accept a wager to win $500, and reject the remainder. Just another case of confusing inconsistency that makes it hard for punters and bookies alike.

Beware of “technical issues”

On another occasion I had a Queensland greyhound bet that was referred to a trader and then rejected. The bookie claimed they had a technical issue with their website at the time I tried to bet. I didn’t accept this because my bet was referred to a trader and then rejected. They also changed their odds after rejecting my bet, so their system seemed to be working fine.

Racing Queensland initially agreed with the bookie that it was a technical error. When I asked Racing Queensland where in the MBL rules it stated that a technical error was a reason to avoid MBL rules, they involved their legal department and agreed that the bookie was liable.

In summary…

1. Most bookies do follow the rules. Where you think they haven’t, raise it with them and give them a chance to correct it.
2. Where they don’t, you need to be aware of what you’re entitled to. It can be complicated as each state and racing code has their own rules, which can vary. Know your stuff!
3. It is the state racing body’s role to ensure MBLs are followed by bookmakers. If you have a claim, it is ultimately against them.

Still having issues?

As a punter who has navigated through a number of MBL disputes, Steve has graciously offered to help out other punters with some advice on their own disputes. If you’d like to get in touch with him, just email him at [email protected]