“It’s nothing more than a facade.”

By on October 13, 2017

Lots of good feedback regarding yesterday’s newsletter about Bruce Millington, the Racing Post editor, criticising bookmaker restrictions in his Thursday column.

A lot of you are thinking on the same lines as me – it’s a good start but it doesn’t go far enough.

As a few of you pointed out, it should have been a 2 page spread and not just a small section.

Jim had another view of the column…

“Kris, it’s nothing more than a facade. Pretend to cover bookie restrictions but really use the column to bash minimum wagers.”

I hadn’t actually thought of this, but he may be right.

In the column Bruce said…

“I don’t know what the answer is but I do not believe it is an enforced minimum-bet stipulation, as many are calling for.

This is unworkable because many punters have control of multiple accounts so if bookmakers were forced to lay anything to lose, say, £1,000, the punter with access to 20 accounts could stretch that limit to £20,000.”

I don’t agree with Bruce at all here.

Afteral if they can do it in Australia why can’t they do it here?

In Australia the bookmakers are obliged to accept any bets that pay out $1,000 or less.

This is definitely something we need to have here.

But it won’t happen unless we see a similar situation to what happened in Australia.

Where there was a big public outcry as it was deemed “Un-Australian”.

But with the media over here being in the bookmakers’ pockets it’s very unlikely in the near future.

Cheers,
Kris Jackman | Founder Tipster Supermarket

P.S. Don’t forget your free footy acca today.

Current odds are over 202/1!

You can get it here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *