Online bookmaker Sportsbet is the master of the so-called “novelty” bet, allowing punters to wager on virtually any outcome — from the gender of this year’s Big Brother winner to the identity of the Queen’s next chef. These niche bets aren’t about raking in money — they usually attract a small number of punters betting insignificant amounts — but garnering free publicity and drawing in new customers beyond racing and sports devotees.
On Tuesday, Sportsbet opened a market on the identity of the next Media Watch host, installing former presenter Paul Barry as the $4 favourite. It wasn’t just the list of unlikely contenders — from Andrew Bolt to Alan Jones — that made this an eye-catching bet, but the fact the race had already been run and the winner determined.
Crikey reported last week that a successor to Jonathan Holmes had been chosen some time ago and the handover had been planned for months. It’s understood former ABC Television boss Kim Dalton signed off on the decision before leaving in February. One well-placed ABC insider estimates around a dozen people within Aunty would have known the new host’s identity.
At around 5pm yesterday, Barry was still the favourite at $4 — by 6pm he had firmed to $3 after an apparent betting plunge. By around 7pm Sportbet had suspended betting and wiped the contest from its website.
A spokesman for the company told Crikey this morning that only around six bets had been placed on the contest. Betting was suspended, he said, because Barry’s name was circulating on Twitter as the host. “It was standard operating procedure,” the spokesman said. Crikey, however, has not found any evidence of such tweets.
Whatever the reason, it was a wise decision. This morning, The Australian Financial Review reported Barry will be the next host. Crikey understands the ABC will make an official announcement later today that ex-Four Corners hack turned freelancer and author — who hosted the program in 2000 before being sacked by Jonathan Shier — will take over in July.
Holmes told Crikey: “I certainly didn’t have a bet and as far as I know no one at Media Watch did.”
If anyone with advance knowledge of Barry’s appointment did place a bet on his appointment, they’d be well-advised to keep it to themselves — especially if they live in NSW. The Crimes Amendment (Cheating at Gambling) Act 2012 states:
A person who possesses information in connection with an event that is inside information, and who knows or is reckless as to whether the information is inside information, is guilty of an offence if the person:
(a) bets on the event, or
(b) encourages another person to bet on the event in a particular way, or
(c) communicates the information to another person who the first person knows or ought reasonably to know would or would be likely to bet on the event.
A spokesman for Sportsbet told Crikey they didn’t see any problem with taking bets on the Media Watch host because an official decision had not been announced.
“It’s not illegal for anyone to bet on these markets,” spokesman Ben Hawes said, adding that “people aren’t getting set to win large amounts on markets such as these”.
But Sally Gainsbury, Post Doctoral Research Fellow at Southern Cross University’s Centre for Gambling Education & Research, says such contests pose a threat to the integrity of gambling.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate,” she said. “You shouldn’t be taking bets on an outcome that’s pre-determined.”
I hope you realise, that for a market such as this, Sportsbet WOULD NOT take a bet greater than perhaps $50. So if they say they’ve taken 6 bets, it is unlikely they’ve lost anything more than a few hundred dollars even if all those bets were winning bets (which of course they likely weren’t).
That NSW law is a very silly one by the way. Does that mean Betting companies should not be able to accept bets on events (in effect they are making a wager with the punter in taking a bet) if they are in possession of information that the punter is not aware of???
Sacrebleu!
In effect – are the Sports Betting Operators cheating at gambling every time they know more information than an ordinary punter? Under that law – I would have to say YES. So why aren’t shonks like Sportsbet prosecuted?
I think I just read the phrase “the integrity of gambling”. Hahahahahahahahaha!
Had the identical reaction to Jools.
It’s a great relief to hear Paul Barry has the gig. Secretly, I was hoping Clive Palmer would be hosting but, realistically, he’d have to relinquish the role once elected as PM.
Phew! I would have bet Tom Waterhouse was going to get that gig too?
With betting on every part of life now occurring and the conditions under-which you can commit an offense(even without betting yourself) I have to ask “are the betting companies exposing the public to additional risk of committing a crime?”.
How would I know if a college at work puts money on the such random bets occasionally?, but others in the office know ! (so I should reasonably know). Then I may have no idea there is “betting on the Media Watch Host” and casually remark to my colleague a fact I may have come across “Barry will be the new host”, if my colleague goes and puts a bet on, then I may be charged.
I think there will be a lot of reliance on the “ought reasonably to know” to defend this.
My concern is why should what betting companies choose to bet on, in an advertising ploy, effect the the possibility I may have to defend myself at court. Should I now watch all their adds, so I do not let someone know some random fact ?
One way to tackle this is if the betting organisation opens a bet on something for which some people may already reasonably know, then the organisation is the offender and should have no claim against those who thus place a bet. Why punish the punter who is trying to out guess the bookie all the time? Sure if you are involved with the event ie; You are the one to chooses the winner then that is insider.
Why should the actions of one party (the betting company) and another party “the Punter”, both whom I may not know much – if at all, have any influence on what I can or can’t say lest I risk a criminal charge.
Let us please put the right to share facts ahead of some dubious industry that makes sure it is always ahead and preys on the gullibility of punters.