I'm not going to weigh into the ongoing debate (and interminable court battle) over the financial contribution that corporate bookmakers should make to the racing industry, but I do have one important question regarding how they operate:

Why don't they have to take a reasonable bet?

Rails bookies have always been required to take a bet to lose a certain amount of money. For example a Melbourne rails bookmaker has to take a bet to lose $5000 in any one win or each-way bet. Elsewhere in Victoria (at country, provincial and picnic meetings) they are obliged to take a bet to lose $1500.

The Australian Bookmaker's Association actually support that rule as it ensures that punters retain some rights, are able to get on for a reasonable amount and the bookies are providing a minimum level of service.

So why don't the corporate bookies have to work to the same requirement? Getting set to win even a few thousand dollars with them can be very difficult.

Slogans like 'World's biggest bookmaker' and 'Australia's number one bookmaker' are obviously based on the number of clients they have, rather than the size of bets they will take. Most are adopting the UK method of banning or heavily restricting any punter that shows any sign of being a winner.

We have even had to tell clients to be wary of their 'welcome' phone calls after a new deposit because they're not actually that keen to find out more about you as a person, what they're really doing is trying to work out if you are anything more than a mug punter. Your account is soon marked if you are.

One of our clients made a bet of $1000 at odds of $9 recently, only to be called an hour later by a well known corporate bookie and told they had arbitrarily decided to cancel half of his bet (most likely because the horse's price had already firmed). It took a lot of discussion for them to finally agree that the bet should stand. Could you imagine an on-course bookie trying that one on?

The industry wants to stimulate turnover, well allowing people to get set for a reasonable amount would do just that. You also have the multiplier effect of bookies betting back with other bookies or laying off on the tote.

While on-course bookies aren't always sure who they're dealing with, corporate's are able to segment their client base according to the clients full bet history, strike-rate, profit on turnover and also via demographic information.

Instead of banning punters why not use this information themselves? Identify the long-term winning punters but instead of banning them, follow them. Back the same horse elsewhere, or push the price of other runners out. Or they could learn from the business model of the world's biggest sports bookmaker who is able to manage their book rather than banning winning punters. They are bookmakers in the true sense of the word in that they aim to make a small percentage profit on the event regardless of the outcome.

The now defunct Australian Punters Association would have been a good vehicle to make some progress on this issue, but any campaigning is now left to individuals and it's an uphill battle.

On-course bookies are largely forgotten in this era of corporate bookmaking but they shouldn't be. While they may have much lower advertising budgets, many will take much bigger bets than their NT opposition.