Betting charges dismissed against Robbie Waterhouse over claims he offered punter inducements

One of Australia’s best-known bookies has beaten claims from the gambling regulator he induced a punter to keep placing bets after receiving a request to cancel his account.

One of Australia’s best known bookies has beaten claims he continued to allow a punter to place bets after he requested the account be closed and offered “inducements” for him to keep betting.

Robbie Waterhouse beamed into the Bathurst Local Court on Monday afternoon using a shaky mobile phone as magistrate Gemma Slack-Smith delivered her findings.

The court was told Liquor & Gaming NSW laid charges alleging he breached the Betting and Racing Act when a client of RobWaterhouse.com requested to have his account closed on May 14, 2022.

The same month, the punter allegedly placed six new bets and was allegedly offered match deposits and bonus bets five times to not close his account.

It was alleged the man was offered matched deposits, worth up to $1000, or a $100 bonus bet by a RobWaterhouse.com representative.

Gai and Robbie Waterhouse. Picture: Supplied.

Prosecutors from the regulator alleged a person who made those offers was acting as an agent for Mr Waterhouse, who held a bookmark electronic betting authority.

Handing down her findings, Ms Slack-Smith said the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the betting website RobWaterhouse.com operated held a betting licence or operated under Mr Waterhouse’s.

“While this is suspicious … I cannot find the only rational inference that the betting website RobWaterhouse.com operated under Mr Waterhouse’s licence,” he said.

“I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt Mr Waterhouse made or caused other persons to make each of the electronic communications said to comprise the offences.”

All 11 charges were dismissed.

Ms Slack-Smith said Mr Waterhouse, the husband of legendary horse trainer Gai Waterhouse, had an interest in the ownership and management of RobWaterhouse.com but was not acting as a director or secretary for the company that operated the website at the time.

His lawyer Rob Ranken flagged they may seek an court order on legal costs when the case returned to court on February 6.