Commentary | Polarization of Gamblers

Polarization of gamblers as described on SavySeph's Webpage. had taken place in Malaysia.

Let me bore you with some background before going into the Malaysian scenario. The Genting Group had enjoyed the monopoly as the sole casino in the country for half a century. This gives them a high-brow attitude to gamblers most of the time. If you do not know the Genting Group they had been famous for the wrong reason lately. The two links will give you an account of the arrogance.

1. Ivey Versus Genting Group
2. Genting played into Ivey's Hands

Some 3 to 5 years ago, Genting decided to do away with "top-up bets". These are bets made by other parties in addition to the original bettor. These various third parties place top-up bets because they wanted to bet below the table limits. By topping up their bets on a legitimate bet that meet table limits, their less than minimum bet qualifies as a legitimate bet.

It is common to get top-up bets of RM5 from several parties and it would be a real pain (RM5 could barely get you a MacDonald's combo meal). By doing away with the top-up bets Genting had driven the smaller punters away to online casinos. Genting had always been arrogance about punters having nowhere to turn since they are the only legalized casino in the country. They thought that they managed to educate their patrons to adhere to their min bet policy. To take it a notch further they double the betting limits on their table to get more profitability out of a game. Still maintaining their high nose they did not realized that they had driven more patrons to online competitors. Many UK based online casinos were quick to capitalize on this market and had been flexible to accept bets in RM (notation for Malaysian Currency) and speeding up deposit and withdrawal by tying up with local banks.

SavySeph’s justifications the polarizations of gamblers are a bit different. It from a business perspective and would make an interesting read. The link is on the first paragraph.