Kit Walker

Entain share dipped to $5.01 overnight a. 8.44% drop and over the past five days are down 17.1%. Last month 31.15% - 7.26 - 501. At 501 that is a great price to buy. They may have done a few things wrong of late but that share price has to rise over the next few weeks. At the current price It wouldn't come as any surprise to see a takeover proposal getting announced. MGM Resorts might be one Company considering it having previously made an offer.

The betting option below is giving Entain a huge house edge by not offering all four options eg zero wins. Casinos scoop the pool if the ball lands on zero but you do have the opportunity to bet on it happening. Waller does have three of the favourites in three of the four races but Group 1 events are never easy to win.

This person is onto it. I'm writing to strongly oppose this bill. As a keen observer of the industry, and recreational player I feel I'm very well placed to offer an informed objective opinion on this bill. In my opinion Entain very clearly operates a no long term winners trading policy. It is abundantly clear both anecdotally and from a personal account of betting with them or their subsidiaries over the last 20 years that as soon as you turn a long term profit you will have your bets heavily restricted to a point where you have no option but to go elsewhere to have a bet. It is a trading practice that preys on losing customers and has no room for customers that have the slightest edge in the market or turn a consistent profit. In my opinion Entain operates the most aggressive restrictive trading practice in the industry and their current trading model is completely unfit for a monopoly where consumers lose the option to bet elsewhere. It is the antithesis of safer gambling, where only long term losing customers are welcome. It is a model that simply does not allow customers to win over the long term. It is common for a customer to be restricted and offered as little as 10 dollars on an All Blacks match, and even less on an NPC game once they start to show the slightest bit of betting nouse. Let's have a hypothetical example - Do you like the Canterbury odds at home this week against North Harbour in the NPC? You've done some research, you think North Harbour may be concentrating on their match the following week against Auckland - a more winnable opportunity, hence the reason you like the odds on Canterbury. Fairly logical thinking right? A bet on this on a Wednesday for Saturday's game followed by the market moving significantly in your direction (odds get lower) will nearly always result in your account being restricted the following week. If it is not restricted the following week, it is restricted the week after. This is the stark reality of modern day bookmaking, winning customers are quite simply eliminated, and why it makes a monopoly completely unfeasible in modern day bookmaking. Responsible gamblers bet for two reasons, for entertainment purposes, and to try and win some money. Unlike the casino, sport and racing odds are inefficient and subjective, it is a game of your opinion against the bookmakers with a nice little margin in the bookmakers favour to cover that degree of inefficiency and subjectiveness. Everything is stacked in the bookmakers favour. To then restrict customers playing to a point where they have to go elsewhere to bet simply because as a global conglomerate making hundreds of millions of dollars a year they cant face losing even the most nominal amount to customers who bother to do some research is incredibly unethical and once again completely unfit for a monopoly which restricts choice. The betting eco system relies on winning customers to function. It also relies on customers winning to function. It simply will not function long term without winning customers framing the market to a point where it is positive expected value for a bookmaker to take bets on both sides. It will also not function under a high margin trading strategy where uncompetitive odds are offered. Customers become disinterested when they lose too fast. Entain quite clearly ignore these very two key parts of the betting eco system in a trading practice that has one thing in mind - appeasing shareholders through maximising profits to the detriment of customers. This is facilitated by removing winning customers and even removing net zero customers from their books to increase margin and profits. Unless you lose consistently you are simply not welcome. If this bill gets passed some keys points must be addressed. Minimum Bet Laws The government must guarantee robust minimum bet guarantees on sport and racing by selection (not market) with no exceptions so everyone can participate in the market at their free will to a respectable amount. Australia operates a Minimum bet guarantee on racing. The parameters are to win 2k on metro racing. Please note the difference of a bet guarantee to a bet. $2000 = $200 @ 11.0 or $400@ 6.0 it is not a guarantee of $2000 at any odds. However under their system and free market within Australia you can operate with 20+ bookmakers so the real limit is closer to 40k. This must be taken into account when structuring a minimum bet guarantee. It simply must be higher to fall in line and simply has to be extended to sports betting. There can be no grey area that allows Entain to act in an arbitrary manner against customers restricting trade using outs granted to them under safer gambling and arbitrage/bonus abusers small print. They can not be allowed to treat customers in an arbitrary manner that restricts trade. The lines between acting on customers under safer gambling protocol can not be blurred or used to act on normal winning customers. Bet guarantees have to be applied to sport by selection, and not by event. Competitive odds. Currently Entains product is one of the most uncompetitive from a bookmakers margin point of view in the world. Standardised industry odds are now 1.91 v 1.91 in a two way market across the global betting market, some bookmakers are 1.93 v 1.93, betfair exchange is roughly 1.97 after commission. It is the default for The TAB to offer 1.87 v 1.87 or even 1.83 v 1.83. Currently they are obliged to contribute a turnover tax to NZ sporting bodies which goes some way to explain this uncompetitive pricing strategy on some sports, but other sports are just inexcusably uncompetitive from an odds and market percentage point of view where no turnover takeouts are required. Turnover takeouts to sporting bodies can simply not be used as an excuse to offer a grossly inferior product to the NZ betting public under monopoly restrictions. I suggest minimum market percentages of 104-105% must be enforced. The failure to do this simply means customers lose quicker, and lose interest quicker, turnover then drops, and the entire industry suffers. Once again it is the antithesis of safer gambling. High take outs are catastrophic for the betting eco system and stifle turnover and lead to greater gambling harm. It is irrefutable. Another area of great concern is markets with 4 or more selections. they are extremely uncompetitive from a margin POV. A top bat cricket market is sometimes routinely bet to 140% for Eleven selections. There is no consistency to their trading margins for markets with more than 4 selections in a market. It is this kind of defensive, erratic pricing that has contributed to turning customers off shore in the first place. There is zero consistency of product in regards to margin. How can this practice of uncompetitive and inconsistent pricing possibly be trusted under a monopoly? It almost appears their traders are not even aware of competitive market percentages once they get past 4 selections. The art of odds compiling and percentage per runner formulas appears non-existent. It is simple but very important intricacies like this that provide an insight into their trading practices and inability to be competitive in a free market where they should be, never mind a monopoly. Betfair exchange. I plead with the members to take a meeting with Betfair Exchange and understand the intricacies of the exchange and how it differentiates from a fixed odds bookmaker i.e. The Tab. There is almost zero crossover of customers who currently operate in the exchange space that will filter back to the fixed odds model Entain provides i.e The Tab. It is a trading platform that allows the active trading and framing of the sports betting markets through peer to peer exchange, there is simply no equivalent product offered by Entain should it be banned. It would be like banning yogurt under a milk monopoly. It is vital to the betting eco system and is also a key product used by Entain themselves to frame their own markets and hedge their business. From a financial standpoint a banning of the Betfair exchange will lead to thriving black markets as these customers seek a product no longer available in NZ. Likewise the POC tax will simply disappear from customers who do not cross over back to a fixed odds product, because that product now fails to exist. It is a lose lose for the consumer, the betting eco system, the industry, and the government. It is quite literally an unparalleled product in NZ. An exchange exemption will help provide a robust betting market in NZ that will complement fixed odds turnover while still allowing the industry to prosper from tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars of turnover driven through the exchange each year from NZ players. It is incredibly misinformed to think that even 1% of the betfair exchange turnover will return to a NZ fixed odds monopoly. This is why it is essential for the committee to understand the intricacies of the exchange market vs a fixed odds market. It is also in my opinion highly unethical that Entain should be able to hedge through the betfair exchange to offset their own risk, along with framing their own markets using the platform, while the rest of the NZ public is left out. Once again it's the equivalent of Entain getting to purchase yogurt and rest of NZ being banned. In summary, I believe granting Entain a monopoly under their current trading practices shows a complete misunderstanding of how a modern day bookmaker operates, what really drives betting turnover, and the restrictive and arbitrary manner customers are treated. It also naively assumes that lost turnover will simply just return to NZ. I can't even begin to explain just how misinformed this is. It is astonishing that a 25 year handcuff is being floated for 100 Million dollars when other free market options are available. The NZ consumer should not be punished for the racing industry’s failures.

I think it will go through to the total detriment of the NZ punter. The politician's are clueless on betting and will vote like sheep. The crap will hit next year when 15 online casino sites are licensed. I no where the majorly of young peoples betting will be going. What NZ racing is losing to overseas betting sites on sports and racing is way less than what online casinos are ripping from the entertainment dollar. That coupled with loss of Greyhound revenue will hurt. Ohh and the sports codes are currently collectively addressing the Government to receive all profits from sports betting.

Greg ? Who the hell is Greg?

https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Regulatory-Impact-2024/$file/RIS_Protecting-TAB-NZ's-from-offshore-betting-to-ensure-a-sustainable-racing-industry_Redacted.pdf The meaning is self explanatory. Section 1 #19 You might find some other things interesting as well. RIS_Protecting-TAB-NZ's-from-offshore-betting-to-ensure-a-sustainable-racing-industry_Redacted.pdf.html

The partnership (ENTAIN and THE TAB )agreement provides no opportunity for government intervention in its details or operation.

Entain in their submission to take over the running of the NZ TAB stated they had great procedures in place to counter possible money laundering - it's obvious they didn't or if they did they failed miserably. They want a monopoly but it makes one wonder if they are capable enough to deserve it. They broke conditions of the agreement one week after taking over. When the five years is up look out.

Give Google a crack, it's not hard to find.

The British bookmaking giant behind Ladbrokes and Neds allegedly failed to cut off a customer who punted more than $1 million in a single year despite knowing an internationally wanted criminal suspected of trafficking drugs had transferred money into his bank account. Another customer, according to details filed by the federal anti-money laundering agency with the Federal Court, put more than $20 million through the bookmaker between 2015 and 2022 and was likely a trafficker who was incorrectly thought to own car yards when he was unemployed. Entain’s Ladbrokes is one of the most prominent wagering brands in the country. Getty Over 640 pages, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre has alleged London-listed Entain repeatedly breached anti-money laundering laws and did not bother to put in proper checks on how some of its biggest customers were financing yearly multi-million dollar betting. Although Austrac announced its lawsuit against Entain last year, the new filings are the first time the agency is detailing the company’s wrongdoing. Austrac has alleged that the failings by the company’s board and senior management exposed the company’s banking partners and “resulted in serious and systemic non-compliance … over many years”. Entain is one of the country’s largest online bookmakers and had almost 2 million customers last year with a market share of 17 per cent. It has faced similar lawsuits in the United Kingdom, where it has a market capitalisation of £3.7 billion ($7.6 billion), paying a $29 million fine in 2022 for breaches. In its claim, Austrac alleges Entain’s poor oversight created money laundering risks with at least 17 customers and $152 million. According to the new details, Customer 13 deposited more than $4.2 million into two Entain accounts between 2015 and 2022, and Austrac alleges the company should have suspected his funds were suspicious by 2019. It was then that Customer 13 – names have been redacted in the court documents – provided a bank statement that claimed he had received $150,000 for a “granny flat”. The person who transferred the money was on a “red [international arrest] notice list for serious criminal offences, namely drug crimes and trafficking in a South-East Asian country”. By 2019, Customer 13 was depositing nearly $69,000 a month. The following year, this had increased to $94,000, or $1.1 million over 12 months. “A pattern of large amounts of money being regularly moved … on an ongoing basis is not consistent with the transactional activity of an average gambler and involves heightened money laundering and terrorism finance risk,” documents filed by Austrac with the court read. “The amounts of money being deposited and withdrawn … were materially above average total annual deposits and withdrawals for Entain’s customers.” In 2020, the employee assigned to work with Customer 13 allegedly told Entain that he had “no idea” what his client did for work, although they “believed” that he ran a business when asked about the source of his money. The employee, known as a business development manager, allegedly did not want Entain to contact his client because it might “scare him off”. Business development managers are assigned to high-spending customers and receive commissions for the amount of money they lose. In another matter, Customer 15 was detected depositing unusually high amounts of money from foreign accounts. Austrac alleges Entain Australia chief executive Dean Shannon personally reviewed the account and decided that he was “very low-risk” because he had been wagering for a decade and publicly available information about his wealth matched his spending. Meanwhile, Customer 7 wagered $20.2 million between 2015 and 2022 through two Entain accounts, one with Ladbrokes and the other Neds. Austrac alleges that despite Customer 7 sharing a name with a convicted drug trafficker, Entain did not make proper checks until August 2021. It also alleges Customer 7 displayed unusual depositing and withdrawing patterns from July 2016, and that during the period Entain did not have sufficient information about where the client was getting its money. In May 2018, according to the court filing, an Entain employee advised the company that his customer owned two Sydney car yards. This information was not confirmed and Customer 7 later told the company that while he was a car salesman, he was not currently employed and owned no car yards. By August 2021, when it began inquiries, Austrac was aware that Customer 7 was depositing cash and unemployment payments into its accounts. While it closed the Ladbrokes account the following month, Entain did not close Customer 7’s second account, with Neds, until October 2022. Another client, known as Customer 1, was allegedly the subject of negative press and had been convicted of robbery and being part of a criminal gang that had attempted to recover money from a drug deal. Austrac claims that this information was easily obtainable for Entain from 2008, as were details of Customer 1’s seven-year jail sentence. However, the employee assigned to Customer 1 allegedly asked Entain’s anti-money laundering compliance officer not to contact his client because this could “upset” them, and that they were a “great client” for the company. Customer 17, another client included in Austrac’s claim, wagered $30.8 million through Ladbrokes in five years, at one point depositing $1 million per month. Customer 17 later told Entain he had made a number of successful “speculative investments” that were never verified. When asked the name of the business he had sold, he said that it was “private”. Entain eventually cut off his accounts last year when the company concluded that his wealth did not support his wagering activities. Austrac has pursued several major companies for anti-money laundering law breaches and issued more than $2 billion in penalties since 2015, when it fined Tabcorp $45 million for facilitating dirty funds. The agency has also forced Westpac and Commonwealth Bank to pay respective fines of $1.3 billion and $700 million for anti-money laundering breaches. Stella David, chief executive of Entain, said the company was taking the allegations seriously. It plans to introduce new anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism finance compliance measures by June 2025. “We are committed to keeping financial crime out of gambling and continue to play our part in supporting a well-regulated and compliant sector for our customers, stakeholders and the wider community,” she said. ----- Yes the above is in the past but new indiscretions keep arising. Stella David, chief executive of Entain, said the company was taking the allegations seriously. It plans to introduce new anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism finance compliance measures by June 2025. ---- Obviously well needed

If they continue to now know their customers who are wagering huge amounts they are not doing much with their hands. I don't know what the obsession to compare packer to Entain is? Bizarre.

Entain shares are now down 26.5% over the last month (20.6% over the past year). That's one hell of drop for a Company listed in the FTSE 100. Shareholders will be screaming for the Company management to get the stock price back on track. No current CEO doesn't exactly help. The last one left abruptly after just a few months which was odd given his wagering background.

Updated Apr 1, 2025 – 4.12pm,first published at 4.00pm Bookmaker behind Ladbrokes turned blind eye to drug money laundering The British bookmaking giant behind Ladbrokes and Neds allegedly failed to cut off a customer who punted more than $1 million in a single year despite knowing an internationally wanted criminal suspected of trafficking drugs had transferred money into his bank account. Another customer, according to details filed by the federal anti-money laundering agency with the Federal Court, put more than $20 million through the bookmaker between 2015 and 2022 and was likely a trafficker. https://www.afr.com/companies/games-and-wagering/court-filings-reveal-entain-s-blind-eye-to-drug-money-laundering-20250401-p5lo5r

It's actually very easy to launder money if your transactions are not getting scrutinized. Find a sports market that gets huge betting activity eg Football Premier League back one team to win and then lay it on Betfair. The slight loss on the dollar for either result is a small amount to pay to wash any possible money laundering activity.

From his phone number would be an obvious indication. Knowing his location doesn't exactly constitute due diligence as required under the Act.

The problem is it seems odd that they failed to gather sufficient information on a customer who deposited $15 million into his account. Have you tried taking 1k out of your TAB account at a pub or TAB outlet? The rigmarole to do that is unbelievable. I don't understand given the amount of previous similar problems ENTAIN have faced and yet they still get pulled up. Their share price has dopped 24% in a month so guessing their shareholders won't be happy reading the latest potential problem. The toss never took place the Texan spluttered and crawled away. Packer called his bluff.

How does this happen when they said the following: