Punters and anti-gambling advocates have hit out at betting agencies for restricting or shutting down the accounts of people who win too often.

Key points: Punters detail how operators restrict or shut them down

Punters detail how operators restrict or shut them down Betting agencies labelled "immoral and predatory"

Betting agencies labelled "immoral and predatory" Calls for universal minimum bet laws

In a little-known strategy to prevent paying out too much to the same winning punters, operators simply restrict how much they can bet or close them down altogether.

There is nothing illegal about it and the right to do it is written into agencies' terms and conditions, but anti-gambling advocates say such conduct is unethical and should be illegal.

"The sports betting companies are utterly immoral and predatory," Tim Costello, spokesman for the Alliance for Gambling Reform, told the ABC.

"They have real-time data of who's winning and they will block people who are winning.

"They have real-time data of large amounts of money being bet, maybe at 3:00am, knowing a person might have bipolar [disorder] or might be sleepless and they won't block them."

Matthew* has been betting on racing and sports for years and said he had been restricted by almost all Australian-licensed agencies.

"Once each company identifies you as a winning customer or basically as non-profitable for them, they will restrict or effectively ban you from betting with them," he told the ABC.

"It's often done, not necessarily after being a long-term winner, but after a few bets."

Same bets, same time, different outcome

He provided the ABC with vision and photos of the same bet being placed with the same agency at the same time from two different accounts.

Sportsbet accepts one bet but the same bet from a restricted account is rejected. ( Supplied )

In the first example, Sportsbet allows a $20 bet on a greyhound race in South Australia from an unrestricted account.

But as Matthew tries the same bet from his account he is advised that "an error occurred" and told to try again later or contact customer service.

"I think it should be a level playing field. If they offer that product to one person it should be available to everyone," he said.

In another example, this time with bet365, an unrestricted account is allowed to place a $16 bet on a harness race in Queensland, while the same bet from his own account placed at the same time is rejected for being "above the maximum" bet amount.

"I find it pretty outrageous that they prey on unsuccessful punters or people with gambling problems … while anyone who shows a little bit of intelligence with their betting isn't allowed those same opportunities," Matthew said.

Sportsbet would not answer questions about why it restricted accounts but a spokesperson said: "Sportsbet complies with minimum bet limits as directed by racing and sporting governing bodies."

The ABC contacted bet365 for comment but did not get a response.

bet365 rejects one bet but accepts the same bet from a different account. ( Supplied )

Calls for universal minimum bet laws

Matthew said a solution to the issue would be to implement minimum bet limits across the country, forcing agencies to accept bets up to a certain minimum winning amount.

It's an idea supported by RMIT's Dr Anna Thomas, who was the joint author of a report for the Federal Government in 2017 into betting restrictions and online wagering in Australia.

"That was one of the recommendations within our report … to do that across the board," she said.

Some racing codes and states have already implemented minimum bet rules, but they are not yet universal.

"These sorts of rules are great in creating level playing fields," Matthew said.

But he also pointed out that some agencies had already found ways to get around the minimum bets rules when they didn't want to accept a bet.

Matthew describes a process whereby he would attempt to place a bet but rather than it going straight through he would get a message that it was "pending".

A short time later he would get a message saying the bet could be accepted but at shorter odds that were no longer attractive to him.

Punters turn to illegal offshore operators

Australians bet more on horse racing than any other sports or events. ( AAP: Hamish Blair )

For their report, Dr Thomas and co-author Dr Jennifer Podesta spoke to several punters who had experienced similar restrictions to Matthew.

The paper found people who were blocked from betting with Australian agencies would turn to illegal offshore operators, which presented a number of problems.

Winning punters say they are often treated differently to losers. ( Supplied )

"First, there are control and protection issues related to under- or un-regulated offshore sites in terms of adequate consumer protections, the potential for fraud, money-laundering and sporting integrity issues (e.g. match-fixing)," the report said.

"Second, there is the issue of a loss of revenue to governments and sporting bodies through taxes, license and product fees and to Australian businesses through loss of customers."

Gamblers are known to then use operators in Asia, Europe and the US, which is illegal — not for the punter, but for the operator, because they are not licensed in Australia.

One punter told the ABC he had to be prepared to accept that sometimes he may not be paid out by dubious overseas operators.

Restricted even while losing

Loses in sports betting in Australia has surged in recent years. ( ABC News: Margaret Burin )

Another punter the ABC spoke to said he had experienced issues with betting operators closing him down when he didn't use bonus bets or promotions in the way the agencies had wanted.

"They offer you significant sign up bonuses along with various matched deposit bonuses," he said.

"This is to keep you turning over money and therefore getting addicted, without necessarily using your own money."

There are calls for urgent reforms to the Australian gambling industry.

He said it was relatively easy to make that money work for you through safe bets then withdraw it once you had bet with it the required amount of times.

"Australian betting companies are hypocritical in that they offer you bonus after bonus after bonus if you leave your own money in your account, but ban you if you withdraw to zero as soon as you win [with promotional money]."

Other punters spoke of cases of being restricted even while losing money once an operator had determined your strategy would not be profitable for them.

All of Australia's major betting agencies are known for restricting certain accounts.

They argue that their business models would not be sustainable if they allowed people to win too much.

Mr Costello told the ABC urgent reforms were needed across the gambling industry in Australia, which is number one in the world per capita for gambling losses.

"The gambling environment in Australia at the moment is utterly out of control," he said.

*name changed to protect identity