Sportpunter

Gustov Johansson from Sweden doesn’t mind a bet. He reckons that Norrköping are a sure thing against Helsingborg in the Sweedish Allsvenskan soccer league. So he decides to make a $100 bet at Crownbet, an Australian owned and located company. Unfortunately, his bet wasn’t successful and he losses the $100 after Helsingborg went on a goal kicking rampage. “Jävla” says Gustov.

But what exactly happens to that money? Crownbet pocket the $100 and then over the long term will pay the Australian government part of it through taxes. How much do Crownbet give to the Sweedish governement?

Zero

Despite it being sweedish money that was bet, the transaction occured in Australia, so Sweeden get didily-squat, and poor Gustov is $100 poorer for the effort.

So why then are the Australian government thinking about banning international bookmakers who dont pay tax? If Australian bookmakers dont pay tax on winnings to international governments, then why should international bookmakers pay tax to Australian governments?

I thought the liberal, current Austarlian governemnt were all about free trade and open borders? Because as most liberals will say, free trade encourages growth and competition.

That is 100% true. Punters are turning to international bookmakers because they can provide a better service than the Australian bookmakers. When Tabcorp say that ”Unlicensed offshore operators are not regulated to Australian standards and that poses risks to consumers and the integrity of sport and racing”, what they really mean is ”we want to stop Australians betting overseas because they are competition”.

Yes thats right, Australian bookmakers want international bookmakers banned because they encourage growth and competition. Greater competition means that the Australian bookmakers will have to tighten their screws. Australian bookmakers are against free trade and want closed borders. The liberal government should be strongly against this.

And as punters, we should also be strongly against the ban of international bookmakers. We want free trade, competition and growth. The ability for us to spend our money however we see fit, and not be told by the government what cornershops we can and can’t buy from, should be high on our agendas.

Imagine if the government told us that we can’t buy anything from ebay that came from China because they dont pay Australian tax. There would be outrage. So outraged us punters should be if any restrictions on international bookmakers occur.

The Australian Interactive Gambling Act that was passed in 2001 by then Prime Minister John Howard is in dire need of an update. The Act was created before smartphones were common place, and when the internet was in its infancy.

In play gambling was determined to be illegal, unless one rang up the bookmaker. Seems like a strange rule indeed, but one of the reasons why this was the case, is that the government were scared that digital TV could display odds whilst a sports game was in-play, and that TV viewers could simply use their remote controls to place a bet.

Kerry Packer was all over it.

So this clearly outdated law was put in place. The world has changed remarkably since. And recently there has been a push for the Interactive Gambling Act to be updated. Makes Sense.
Financial Counselling Australia recently brought out a report about problem gambling, concluding amongst other things, that bookmakers giving credit to punters should be outlawed and that every bookmaker should have a opt out option. I’m all for that.

But it seems that whenever laws need to be changed, vested interests come to the fore. More recently, at least according to media reports, limiting or banning Australian punters from betting offshore could well be put into the equation. I don’t need to tell you what bookmakers we are talking about either – just think Asia, Caribbean, USA and Europe, probably in that order.

Tabcorp has come out swinging. They said that “The rise of unlicensed offshore betting in Australian racing and sport needs to be addressed.” Sure but why? They continue, “Unlicensed offshore operators are not regulated to Australian standards and that poses risks to consumers and the integrity of sport and racing”

Ahh so I get it. Tabcorp are only interested in the welfare of Australian punters? The same punters that they earn a living taking money off? The same punters that they will happily allow problem gamblers bet their life away? The same punters that they are happy to give whatever credit they want to punters who clearly have no means to pay it back?

Give me a break. Tabcorp, and presumably all other Australian bookmakers, want to restrict Australian punters access to offshore bookmakers because they want to eradicate competition. Nothing more, nothing less. For them it is a pure business decision.

Sure they might be slightly upset that these offshore companies, whilst not being allowed to advertise in Australia, are not paying their due taxes to the government, but answer this question, Why would a punter in Australia bet offshore anyway?

The answer is simple. They provide a better service.

Either their odds are better, or they are allowed to bet, or they are not banned or limited. If Australian corporate bookmakers didn’t ban, limit or reduce odds for Australian punters, then I’d say we’d be quite happy betting into the Australian websites. However this is not the case.

Corporate bookmaking Australia wants to ban successful Australian punters and then ban them from betting anywhere else. How’s that for a free country?

Clearly the Interactive Gambling Act needs to be changed and updated, but if only the Corporate bookmakers have a say in it, this is no doubt what will happen.

With NHL teams getting less and less power plays, the total number of goals has decreased dramatically this month. The average number of goals per match this month has been 5.20 which is the equal second lowest since 1989, after 5.17 was averaged in 2002 and 5.2 in 1998.

We’ve previously talked about how the number of goals per year has been a decreasing trend, as well as the decreasing trends in April and onwards, the link for this is shown here. However, it seems that this year, the total number has decreased quicker than normal.

Here is a table of the average goals since 2007, the percent above 4.5, 5 and 5.5 goals. Also included in the number above the bookmakers line.

As you can see the average goals decrease quite dramatically in month 4 (april) and onwards, however the percentage above the quoted bookmaker line doesn’t decrease, indicating that the bookmakers line lowers late in the season along with the totals goals scored.

However, in 2014/15 this has changed dramatically this month. A massive decline in total goals was scored in march this season, and the amount of times that the total went over is only at 42%. Thus indicating that the decline in goals scored has been quicker than the bookmakers odds. This is shown in the table below:

Whilst Sportpunter’s NHL model had an amazing start, (18% ROI from the first 200 bets in 20 weeks), it has recently fallen away due to a larger number of over bets. The overs, are not winning as shown above, and a correction, or a change to the model to more quickly dynamically change to different conditions should be looked at, and that’s just what I’ll do.

It appears that PinnacleSports has been sold to undisclosed buyers. Whilst rumours are going around that it is a Las Vegas firm, evidence suggests a UK or Ireland company.

And this makes perfect sense. It wasn’t long ago that Pinnacle had to close its doors to all UK customers, and hence would have lost a big chunk of their turnover. Perhaps it’s only a matter of time until other countries follow the same suit. Being based in Curacao – which is in the Caribbean Sea – probably didn’t help their cause, and if they were going to stay ahead of the bunch, then a move, or change of direction really had to occur.

I said, stay ahead of the bunch, because we at Sportpunter rate PinnacleSports the number 1 bookmaker in the globe. Out list of recommended bookies is shown here.

And why not? With up to 102% markets, and their statement that they never ban or limit anyone, there is really no other bookie that comes close.

So how do PinnacleSports survive with such rules? Simple. They don’t advertise offline, which helps keep their costs down, and they rely on high turnover and smart gamblers to make the markets as accurate as possible. Their lines move instantly on any decent bet, more so on some punters than others, and they release odds with small maximum bets early, and increase the amount one can bet until the start of the match, when the odds are more efficient.

But with the UK out of the market, their turnover will be a lot less, and as stated before, if more countries say no to Pinnacle, then their whole model is in ruin. As I said, they rely on high turnover and large limits to smart gamblers.

The sports gambling industry would take a massive blow if PinnacleSports were to exit the scene. Not only because the smart money would have to bet elsewhere and accept lower limits at worse odds, but also because there are many other bookmaker sites that rely on PinnacleSports to frame their own market (Matchbook for one).

So what will happen to Pinnacle from now on? Will it continue to run as is? Well if they can get the UK back, then increased turnover will only help Pinnacle as well as helping out everyone who bets there. But considering that it was sold, most likely, to someone either in the UK or Ireland, will the new owners inforce UK and Ireland bookmaking techniques?

This of course means, banning successful punters and give out bad odds.

Banning successful punters, will at first give PinnacleSports a greater profit, however, without the successful punters framing markets, it will mean that the next string of punters will have better odds to work with and hence it’s hard to say if Pinnacle will increase or decrease profit with this technique.

Having worse odds, maybe equivalent to the standard bookmaker, will make Pinnacle less enticing for smart punters. Whilst the percent made on turnover will increase for Pinnacle, the amount of turnover will decrease, most likely netting the bookmaker with a lower profit overall.

But there is one thing that PinnacleSports could do that will increase turnover.

Advertising.

Holding a licence in the UK (and also Australia, the slowly opening USA and other countries) will welcome back the UK customers, and increase their customers. Surely Pinnacle (who pride themselves on not advertising), will have to come to the conclusion that advertising in countries where they are allowed to operate, will only help their bottom line. Tom Waterhouse is an obvious example here.

Ohh, and a website that doesn’t just look like a list of numbers (us pro punters love it, but it’s boring to the average joe), and a social media onslaught (sporstbet have to be the best in the world at this), would help every little bit.

So let’s hope that the new owners of PinnacleSports have the right idea. Keep the same business model, but increase on it, by obtaining access in the UK, and hopefully a little bit of advertising.