What $50 million buys you

[Captain Moondog]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9arTILzI1U0[/video]

Every time I see this bloody add I hope this is the time someone coathangers him.

 

[mickqld]

They're paying the bills so i can keep watching my beloved Sea Eagles do what they did last night.
The only reason the Waterhouses exist is because of all the degenerate suckers out there blowing their hard earned (or not so hard earned). Thats their fault not the Waterhouses. They are just smart enough to cash in on the gullible. Don't like it don't watch it and be strong willed and sensible enough not to get suckered by it.

 

[ManlyBacker]

Tom Waterhouse is the offspring of a crook (in Robbie Waterhouse) and a crook (in Gai Waterhouse).

The guy should simply NOT be allowed to be a bookmaker on the races, and only on sport (try and tell me its not a conflict of interest to have his mother, one of the leading trainers, and him be allowed to bet on races where she has runners. Her record of favourites to runners is utterly shocking unless it is a $1million dollar race - for which she will give her staff f all to go out with - which I have been a witness to after Pharoah won his 2nd Doncaster and she gave her entire staff $300 to go out with for the night - which was 2 shouts)

Plus, after what his father and grandfather did (think they're not guilty, read Bill Waterhouse's book - he all but gives it away), he should have no licence.

The prick will never ever get another cent off me after the 1 bet 1 had with him, which was a horse trained by his mother, which proceeded to win by 6 lengths, and I walked away after that.

The whole family should be in jail (except maybe Kate, if she posed naked for Playboy)

Mate, this is a ridiculous post. Harbouring ill-will against people is fine but you might have crossed the line in defaming them (I'm no expert on the subject so maybe I'm wrong).

They wouldn't give Gai a licence because of Rob but she won a legal battle so it is law. That means she can train and her son can be a bookmaker. I can't think of any person in NSW who has done more to promote racing and bring as many people to the track than her.

Tom has taken huge risks with his advertising budget. It is astronomical and it may backfire on him. The word is that Tom doesn't allow consistent winners to be clients. That is an issue and says that he is raking in substantial amounts from uninformed money. Your decision to not bet with him is probably a wise move.

I'm not an apologist for their family but if you think there is easy money in racing then I can assure you that is incorrect and it takes great talent and hard work to pay the way.

Sports betting worldwide is enormous. We have had an influx of new participants to Oz the last 3 to 5 years because it is lucrative. Have a small bet for interest but be sure that only 1% of all punters would make any form of real income from it. The only way I know to make money from punting is to spend more time analysing information than the bookies do themselves and that would mean around 60 hours a week.

I know I have gone a bit off topic. The world seems convinced it is full of evils that must be constrained but everyone has a choice in what they do.

 

[Napper]

We don't agree on much but you are 100% spot on MB!!

 

[ManlyBacker]

Cheers Napper

 

[manlyfan76]

The amount of monies I have personally seen Bikies and organised criminals bet on leauge games would truly shock the average person.

 

[Chip and Chase]

I have no problem with his business, or him sponsoring the league per se. I even like a bet myself and have an account with another firm. What I couldn't cop is him being given a spot on the panel as an alleged "expert" and him not having his very vested interest declared. On top of that we have the rest of the panel reading from the Tom Waterhouse PR manual, two of whom are hard core punters and are using all the right jargon to pump Tommy's tyres up. Finally, what the effin hell has the upcoming races and Green Effing Moon got to do with Manly beating the Broncos ?? I thought "cash for comment" was against the law if you did not disclose.

 

[MWSE]

I have no problem with his business, or him sponsoring the league per se. I even like a bet myself and have an account with another firm. What I couldn't cop is him being given a spot on the panel as an alleged "expert" and him not having his very vested interest declared. On top of that we have the rest of the panel reading from the Tom Waterhouse PR manual, two of whom are hard core punters and are using all the right jargon to pump Tommy's tyres up. Finally, what the effin hell has the upcoming races and Green Effing Moon got to do with Manly beating the Broncos ?? I thought "cash for comment" was against the law if you did not disclose.

This is the part that perplexed me. It also was the straw that broke the camels back and made me switch channels. I am sure a lot of other people had even less patience than I.

 

[ManlyBacker]

I have no problem with his business, or him sponsoring the league per se. I even like a bet myself and have an account with another firm. What I couldn't cop is him being given a spot on the panel as an alleged "expert" and him not having his very vested interest declared. On top of that we have the rest of the panel reading from the Tom Waterhouse PR manual, two of whom are hard core punters and are using all the right jargon to pump Tommy's tyres up. Finally, what the effin hell has the upcoming races and Green Effing Moon got to do with Manly beating the Broncos ?? I thought "cash for comment" was against the law if you did not disclose.

I'll admit that whole segment looked like a paid advert. Cross-promotion of racing was hard to swallow but we cop cross-promotion of The Block and other idiotic channel 9 reality shows, and every channel is doing it. Last year the ch 9 commentary was peppered with the stuff. Complain, use their FB page and other social media is my advice if you want it to stop. I don't think the FTA mob are getting the picture and it only pushes more consumers to Fox and other ways of watching.

 

[Joey]

Tom has taken huge risks with his advertising budget. It is astronomical and it may backfire on him. The word is that Tom doesn't allow consistent winners to be clients. That is an issue and says that he is raking in substantial amounts from uninformed money. Your decision to not bet with him is probably a wise move.

Indeed he has because according to Waterhouse himself, the number of people using his website has risen from fewer than 3000 to about 160,000 in the two years, toward his stated goal of at least 500,000 domestic customers, although he also admits the business is yet to break even because of his huge promotional spend, put at $25m a year.

 

[mmmdl]

Tom Waterhouse is the offspring of a crook (in Robbie Waterhouse) and a crook (in Gai Waterhouse).

The guy should simply NOT be allowed to be a bookmaker on the races, and only on sport (try and tell me its not a conflict of interest to have his mother, one of the leading trainers, and him be allowed to bet on races where she has runners. Her record of favourites to runners is utterly shocking unless it is a $1million dollar race - for which she will give her staff f all to go out with - which I have been a witness to after Pharoah won his 2nd Doncaster and she gave her entire staff $300 to go out with for the night - which was 2 shouts)

Plus, after what his father and grandfather did (think they're not guilty, read Bill Waterhouse's book - he all but gives it away), he should have no licence.

The prick will never ever get another cent off me after the 1 bet 1 had with him, which was a horse trained by his mother, which proceeded to win by 6 lengths, and I walked away after that.

The whole family should be in jail (except maybe Kate, if she posed naked for Playboy)

Mate, this is a ridiculous post. Harbouring ill-will against people is fine but you might have crossed the line in defaming them (I'm no expert on the subject so maybe I'm wrong).

They wouldn't give Gai a licence because of Rob but she won a legal battle so it is law. That means she can train and her son can be a bookmaker. I can't think of any person in NSW who has done more to promote racing and bring as many people to the track than her.

Tom has taken huge risks with his advertising budget. It is astronomical and it may backfire on him. The word is that Tom doesn't allow consistent winners to be clients. That is an issue and says that he is raking in substantial amounts from uninformed money. Your decision to not bet with him is probably a wise move.

I'm not an apologist for their family but if you think there is easy money in racing then I can assure you that is incorrect and it takes great talent and hard work to pay the way.

Sports betting worldwide is enormous. We have had an influx of new participants to Oz the last 3 to 5 years because it is lucrative. Have a small bet for interest but be sure that only 1% of all punters would make any form of real income from it. The only way I know to make money from punting is to spend more time analysing information than the bookies do themselves and that would mean around 60 hours a week.

I know I have gone a bit off topic. The world seems convinced it is full of evils that must be constrained but everyone has a choice in what they do.

No defamation at all - Both Robbie and Bill Waterhouse were found guilty of race fixing. And thus they should never have been allowed back on a race track.

If you can't see the conflict of interest then you're blind. The percentage of Waterhouse favourites that get beat is astronomical..........and who do you think profits from that? Of course, they don't happen in the big races which is what everybody sees - winning a $1m race and getting 10% of the prizemoney is worth it - getting 10% of a 70k prize on a Saturday..........well, I'm sure Robbie and Tom hold more than 7k on Gai's horses in bets.

 

[HK_Eagle]

Maybe it's just me, but I really struggle to justify gambling. Full stop. I understand the way in which it has pervaded our culture and the attempts to make it "un-australan" or "un-manly" or even "PC-soft" to question it... But, I'm clear in my conscience, and yet to be dissuaded from my view on it. This freedom to make decisions for ourselves is all fine if there wasn't a very pervasive physiology issue with what happens to people who gamble. The physiological pathways are very real and dangerous. How to deal with that is a challenge and I don't have the answer. Yes, we are free, and I'd like to think more intelligent, than producing products in our society that promote such potentially unhealthy and destructive behavior.

Rant over.