Legal betting in New Zealand in 2026: who can take your bet, and at what cost

Updated October 2026

Licensed

Available in US

Fast payouts

18+ Only

Current as of October 30, 2026. Verified against the Department of Internal Affairs’ published statement on the Racing Industry Amendment Act 2025 and TAB New Zealand’s own terms.

The shape of legal betting in New Zealand is unusual. There is a single lawful provider, TAB New Zealand, which trades under two online brands — TAB and Betcha — and an unknown number of offshore bookmakers that target New Zealand customers in breach of section 74AAA of the Racing Industry Act 2020. That is the whole field. There is no licence register to consult, no second domestic operator waiting in the wings, and no application route for another bookmaker. The decision a New Zealand bettor faces is not “which of ten licensed brands” but “TAB and Betcha, or an offshore brand that has no right to serve me and no obligation to look after me”. This page is built around that choice, and around what each side of it actually costs.

The cost framing runs through every section. TAB NZ carries the operator-side charges of the monopoly — the Problem Gambling Levy, the partnership economics with Entain, the published safer-gambling tools — and passes them on in odds, in limits, and in the kind of markets it lists. Offshore brands carry none of those obligations: no levy, no New Zealand complaints route, no harm-minimisation framework, and no rule that says a winning bet is paid. The page quantifies where it can and names the rest. A wager of NZ$500 on a two-way market at 1.90/1.90 — a made-up example, not a quoted price — sits inside the calculation section as the worked illustration. Most of the offshore brands that follow sit in New Zealand anyway, and the comparison is the point.

The page reads in five movements. A top-10 ranking of who serves New Zealand, written as the legal fact it is. The fundamentals of what the law actually permits. The legality and regulation behind the monopoly. The responsible-gambling layer that sits on top of it. Then a stack of operator write-ups and a FAQ, in that order.

A ranking of who can take a New Zealand bet

This is a ranking by legal status, not by quality. Only two of the ten brands below may lawfully take a bet from a person in New Zealand. The other eight do take bets from New Zealand customers in practice; the Department of Internal Affairs says they have no right to.

The two licensed rows are not rivals. Betcha is the second online brand of TAB New Zealand, run by Entain NZ, and the two share the same authorisation, the same harm-minimisation tools, and the same exclusion list. Picking between TAB and Betcha is a question of which app and which betslip a bettor prefers, not a question of which operator is supervising the bet. Each of the other eight rows is its own separate operator, in its own separate jurisdiction, with its own separate house rules, and none of them is supervised by the Department of Internal Affairs or covered by New Zealand harm-minimisation law.

The ranking is short because the law is short. New Zealand does not have a list of “approved” foreign bookmakers the way the United Kingdom, Malta or a state regulator in Australia has. The Department of Internal Affairs publishes the rule — only TAB NZ may take these bets from a person in New Zealand — and a list of two brands. The list of eight is what New Zealand bettors actually see advertised to them.

What is legal betting in New Zealand in practice

The fundamentals of legal betting in New Zealand come from a single sentence in section 74AAA of the Racing Industry Act 2020, in force since 28 June 2025: no person other than TAB New Zealand may offer racing betting, sports betting, or other racing or sports betting to a person in New Zealand, regardless of where that person is resident or incorporated. The Department of Internal Affairs administers that rule, told providers serving New Zealand to withdraw with immediate effect after the amendment passed, and publishes a short list of what that means in plain English.

Two online brands. TAB and Betcha. Both belong to TAB New Zealand, both are run by Entain NZ, and both share the same authorisation under section 74AAA. The partnership gives Entain a 50/50 share of gross profits from the TAB business, with at least NZ$150 million a year going to TAB NZ for the first five years; Entain also pledged a one-off NZ$100 million payment to the racing sector at signing. The economics are public because the racing codes depend on the dividend, and the dividend is the reason the monopoly was structured the way it is.

The market the law covers is racing and sports. Racing means thoroughbred, harness (trots), and, until 1 August 2026, greyhound racing — the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Industry) Amendment Bill passed on 2 April 2026, and from that date commercial greyhound racing closes in New Zealand, and offshore operators may not take bets on greyhound races either. Sports means the events TAB NZ lists in its betting programme, which covers the codes a New Zealand punter expects — rugby league and rugby union, cricket, football, basketball, tennis, and a long tail of international events. TAB NZ takes both fixed-odds bets and tote (pool) bets, and publishes the bet types that go with each: Win, Place, Each Way, Quinella, Exacta, Trifecta, First Four, Double, Treble, Daily Double, Running Double, Quaddie, Big6, Multis and Same Game Multis. Live betting is listed in the TAB NZ apps. The statutory picture on in-play restrictions is not established; the practical picture is that in-play exists, in TAB NZ’s app, on the events TAB NZ chooses to offer it on.

What the law does not do. It does not geo-block offshore websites — the New Zealand government does not maintain a list of blocked domains, and an offshore bookmaker is reachable from a New Zealand IP address. It does not punish the bettor. Section 19(4) of the Gambling Act 2003, inserted in 2025, says an individual may not be convicted for placing a bet with an offshore operator in breach of section 74AAA, and no source sets out a penalty for a player. The liability sits on the operator that offers the bet. It does not create a licence register — there is no list of “approved New Zealand bookmakers” because there is no route to be one, and a register listing TAB and Betcha is a list of two rows long. The Online Casino Gambling Act 2026 licenses online casino gambling only; TAB New Zealand winning the right to apply for a casino licence does not extend the betting monopoly, and a casino licence says nothing about a brand’s right to take a sports bet.

The age for a TAB NZ account is 18, the same as the criminal threshold under section 89 of the Racing Industry Act 2020 — a person under 18 who bets commits an offence. Land-based casinos in New Zealand are 20, and that is a different rule that has no place here. TAB NZ accounts require a verified New Zealand address and verified ID; that is operator-level, not statutory, but the practical effect is that a TAB NZ account belongs to a New Zealand resident. There is no statutory per-bet cap, no statutory deposit cap, and no statutory loss limit for betting — those are TAB NZ’s own terms, and a New Zealand bettor reads them on the betting app rather than in the legislation. The page returns to that in the section on what the offshore side costs.

The legal frame: how the monopoly is enforced, and where the cost falls

The Racing Industry Act 2020 creates the monopoly. The Racing Industry Amendment Act 2025 extended it from racing to sports betting, took effect on 28 June 2025, and named the only lawful provider: TAB New Zealand. The Department of Internal Affairs administers the law, monitors compliance with section 92A, and is the regulator a New Zealand bettor complains to — though for a TAB NZ complaint, the operator’s own dispute process is the first stop, and the Department is the backstop. The Gambling Act 2003 sits behind the Racing Industry Act and supplies the player’s protection: section 19(4), the bit that says an individual cannot be convicted for betting with an offshore operator, lives there.

The cost of this regime falls in three places. The first is the player. A New Zealand bettor who bets with TAB or Betcha pays no extra fee, and the in-app tools — deposit limits, time-outs, self-exclusion — are part of the product. A bettor who bets with an offshore brand trades the New Zealand toolset for whatever the offshore brand offers, and the Department of Internal Affairs spells out what that costs: an overseas operator “may be based where consumer protections are weak, may not address gambling harm, may not return unspent credits, and may not pay out large wins”. That is the regulator’s own warning, in plain English, in a published statement, and it is the single most important sentence on this page for a reader who is weighing the choice.

The second place the cost falls is the operator. TAB NZ pays the Problem Gambling Levy at 0.74% of gross profit — a statutory charge in force from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2028 — and that levy funds the Gambling Helpline, the text line 8006, and the Safer Gambling Aotearoa programme. The offshore operator pays nothing into the New Zealand harm-minimisation system, regardless of how many New Zealand customers it takes, and that is the structural reason the Department of Internal Affairs treats the levy as part of the bargain. From 1 July 2024 an offshore operator supplying New Zealand residents has been liable for online gambling duty at 12% of profits, rising to 16% from 1 January 2027, and the point-of-consumption charge on offshore racing and sports bets ceased on 30 June 2026. None of that makes an offshore offer lawful — duty is payable on what is, by definition, a prohibited transaction — but it is the closest the law comes to acknowledging that the betting exists.

The third place is the racing codes. The TAB NZ dividend, the NZ$150 million a year minimum for the first five years of the Entain partnership, is the income that funds the racing industry in New Zealand, and the income that the 2025 amendment was structured to protect. Greyhound racing closes from 1 August 2026 because the Bill for that closure passed on 2 April 2026; from that date, a bet on a greyhound race in New Zealand is not a lawful TAB NZ bet, and an offshore bookmaker taking one is in breach of section 74AAA on top of the breach it was already in. The structural logic of the monopoly is that a bet on a New Zealand-licensed platform funds the codes the bet is on; a bet on an offshore platform does not.

The advertising side is shorter. The Advertising Standards Authority’s Gambling Advertising Code applies to betting ads in New Zealand: they must not target children (under 14) or young people (14 to under 18), judged by context, appeal and expected audience, must not encourage harm, and must be truthful with terms available. There is no New Zealand equivalent of a “whistle-to-whistle” broadcast ban. Because only TAB NZ may offer betting here, the Department of Internal Affairs reads the prohibition as covering promotion of an offshore bookmaker to a New Zealand customer as well — a New Zealand affiliate of an offshore brand is in a grey area, and the regulator’s position on that is not established, so the page does not invite a reader to sign up with an offshore brand. The page describes the brands; the reader decides.

The tax side is for the bettor’s own return. Inland Revenue guidance says recreational gambling winnings are generally not taxable, and prize money from TAB horse, dog and trotting races is not taxable; a person who bets as a business is a different case and the right answer is Inland Revenue or an accountant. The page does not give tax advice; the rule is “recreational winnings from a TAB NZ bet are not taxable to the player”, and that is the line Inland Revenue draws.

The cost of legal betting: the safer-gambling layer, and what the offshore side actually costs

The responsible-gambling layer in New Zealand is operator-led at TAB NZ, regulator-led at the Department of Internal Affairs, and helpline-led at the Gambling Helpline. TAB NZ publishes deposit limits, time-outs and self-exclusion inside its apps, and a self-exclusion applies across both TAB and Betcha because the two brands are one operator. The free Gambling Helpline — 0800 654 655, with a text line at 8006 — runs alongside the Safer Gambling Aotearoa programme and is the service a bettor reaches when the in-app tools are not enough. The Problem Gambling Levy of 0.74% of TAB NZ’s gross profit funds that infrastructure; the levy is the New Zealand version of the harm-minimisation charge a UK bookmaker pays to GambleAware, folded into the cost of every TAB NZ bet. None of this is opt-in for the operator; it is the price of the licence.

The offshore side has none of it. The Department of Internal Affairs’ warning is the most concrete statement on the cost: an overseas operator “may be based where consumer protections are weak, may not address gambling harm, may not return unspent credits, and may not pay out large wins”. That is four distinct risks, and each is a separate way a New Zealand bettor’s money can disappear in a way it does not on a TAB NZ bet. A “consumer protection” gap means the bettor’s contract is governed by the law of whatever jurisdiction the offshore brand is in — Curaçao, Anjouan, Tobique, Costa Rica, in the cases the operator cards name — and a New Zealand bettor has no practical route into those courts. A “gambling harm” gap means the brand is not obliged to surface the in-app deposit limits, time-outs and self-exclusion that TAB NZ is, and most do not. An “unspent credits” gap means an account balance is at the operator’s discretion, not the bettor’s. A “large wins” gap means that the bet a bettor was hoping was the one that paid the holiday is precisely the one most likely to be contested.

There is no national online-betting self-exclusion register. The register the Online Casino Gambling Act 2026 will create is for online casinos only; the betting side of the regime relies on TAB NZ’s own exclusion list and on the operator-level tools inside the TAB NZ app. A bettor who excludes from TAB NZ and Betcha but opens an account with an offshore brand is excluding from one of the field, not from betting; the offshore brand will not be told, and is not obliged to act on a New Zealand exclusion if it is. That is the practical limit of self-exclusion in a regime without a national register, and it is the part of the cost the marketing on an offshore site is least likely to mention.

The arithmetic. The page’s worked example is illustrative and is not a quoted price: a bettor with a monthly betting budget of NZ$500, staked once on a two-way market at decimal odds of 1.90 / 1.90. The bookmaker’s margin on a two-way market at symmetric 1.90 / 1.90 is 1 − 1 ÷ (1 ÷ 1.90 + 1 ÷ 1.90) = 1 − 1 ÷ 1.0526 = 1 − 0.95 = 0.05, or 5.0%. The expected cost of turning over NZ$500 on that market, on average, is 5.0% × NZ$500 = NZ$25, give or take the small rounding in a 1.90 / 1.90 book. The expected return on the same stake, on the same market, is the other 95%, or NZ$475. A real market is not symmetric, and a real market carries the events a bettor actually picks, not an even-money coin flip; the example is a baseline for what a market at those prices costs the bettor, not a prediction of what any one bet will pay.

Stated as a band rather than a single figure, because the input prices are illustrative: the expected cost of wagering NZ$500 once on a two-way market at 1.90 / 1.90 is in the order of NZ$25, assuming the price is symmetric and the bet is settled as a single transaction. A asymmetric market — one side at 1.85, the other at 1.95 — carries a different margin; a multi-leg bet multiplies the prices and the per-leg margins together, and a Same Game Multi does the same in a single event. The 5.0% baseline is the cost of a clean two-way book at even money, and a real book is rarely that clean.

What that means for a New Zealand bettor, at the level the page can say. The cost of legal betting on TAB NZ is the cost of the bet, the 0.74% levy folded in, the in-app toolset, and the regulator behind the operator. The cost of betting with an offshore brand is the same cost of the bet, plus the four named risks from the Department of Internal Affairs, plus whatever the brand’s own terms add (a cap on a free bet, a minimum price for a qualifying bet, a deadline, a stake limit while a bonus is active, a withdrawal time on a win). Both costs are real; only one is supervised, and the page is the place a New Zealand bettor sees that line written out.

What the comparison actually shows

The two licensed brands are the same operator and the same authorisation, so the practical question is which app and which betslip the bettor prefers. The rest of the table is a list of brands New Zealand bettors meet in ads, on social media, in bonus offers, and on the affiliate pages that promote them. The legal fact is the same on all eight rows: not licensed in New Zealand, no right to take a bet from a person in New Zealand, no New Zealand complaints route, no New Zealand harm-minimisation framework reaches them. The Department of Internal Affairs has named the cost of that; the operators themselves have not.

For a bettor who wants New Zealand harm-minimisation tools, New Zealand regulator oversight, and a published complaints framework, the answer is TAB NZ — TAB or Betcha, depending on the interface. For a bettor who wants a wider market range, a different odds line, or a brand that is not the New Zealand monopoly, the answer is one of the eight not-licensed-in-New-Zealand rows, with the four named risks priced in. The page is the description of those two choices, and the read on the cost of each.

TAB and Betcha

TAB and Betcha are not two bookmakers. They are the two online brands of TAB New Zealand, run by Entain NZ, both authorised under section 74AAA of the Racing Industry Act 2020, both administered by the Department of Internal Affairs under the Gambling Act 2003. The Department of Internal Affairs names TAB and Betcha as the brands that remain authorised for online racing and sports betting in New Zealand. There is no separate licence for Betcha because there is no separate operator.

The bet types are the published TAB NZ bet types: fixed-odds and tote on racing (Win, Place, Each Way, Quinella, Exacta, Trifecta, First Four, Double, Treble, Daily Double, Running Double, Quaddie, Big6, Multis and Same Game Multis), and fixed-odds and Same Game Multis on sports, with live betting in the apps on the events the programme lists. The 2025 amendment did not change what TAB NZ offers; it stopped anyone else from offering it. The published bet types, the in-app safer-gambling tools (deposit limits, time-outs, self-exclusion, applied across both brands), the verified New Zealand address and ID at account opening, and the Problem Gambling Levy of 0.74% are the same on both.

The bettor-facing difference is the product. TAB and Betcha are separately designed apps with separately designed betslips and a separately designed promotional calendar; the underlying authorisation, the underlying bet types, the underlying dividend to the racing codes, and the underlying regulatory supervision are identical. A bettor who finds one app easier to read, easier to navigate, or easier to set a deposit limit in is making a product choice, not a regulatory one. A bettor who thinks the two brands have different licences is mistaken, and the Department of Internal Affairs’ published statement is the place that says so.

Verdict: the two legal brands of the only legal operator, indistinguishable in regulatory terms, distinguishable in product. The right way to pick between them is to read both apps, set a deposit limit on whichever one feels easier, and let the rest of the choice be the betslip.

FunBet

FunBet’s sportsbook lists odds on football, ice hockey, American football, basketball, volleyball, tennis, rugby and baseball, with live betting and a 24/7 bookmaker. The brand is run from Curaçao and holds no licence that applies in New Zealand. Under section 74AAA of the Racing Industry Act 2020, FunBet has no right to take a bet from a person in New Zealand; the Department of Internal Affairs’ published warning — weak consumer protections, no harm-minimisation, no obligation to return unspent credits, no obligation to pay large wins — applies in full. The brand names no New Zealand complaints route, and the New Zealand Gambling Helpline is the only New Zealand service that can be reached from an account at FunBet.

The market range is wider than TAB NZ’s, because the offshore bookmaker’s market range is not constrained by the Racing Industry Act 2020’s coverage of racing and sports. A New Zealand bettor at FunBet can bet on a longer list of leagues, on more in-play markets, and on more player props than a TAB NZ account offers. That breadth is the value the offshore brand is selling. The cost is the four named risks, plus whatever FunBet’s own terms add on top — withdrawal time, bonus wagering, minimum price for a qualifying bet, cap on free-bet winnings — none of which are subject to a New Zealand regulator.

Verdict: a wider market range at a price the regulator has spelled out by name. The right reader is a bettor who has read the Department of Internal Affairs’ warning, accepts the four risks, and treats FunBet as an offshore product, not a New Zealand one. The wrong reader is anyone who thinks a Curaçao licence says anything about what happens to a winning bet paid in New Zealand dollars.

Rabona

Rabona launched on 23 December 2019 as the sixth online sportsbook of the Soft2Bet group. The brand holds a Curaçao licence, which gives no right to take bets from people in New Zealand; the same section 74AAA point applies, the same Department of Internal Affairs warning applies, the same four risks apply, the same absence of a New Zealand complaints route applies. The market range is the Soft2Bet range: a long list of football leagues, a long list of in-play markets, the casino-and-sportsbook combination the group is known for.

A bettor at Rabona is betting under Curaçao law, with the operator’s terms in force, with the operator’s KYC and withdrawal rules in force, and with the four named risks from the Department of Internal Affairs sitting on top. The 23 December 2019 launch date is the operator’s history, not a New Zealand protection; the date does not make the brand legal in New Zealand any more than the length of time a brand has been advertising to New Zealand customers does.

Verdict: a Curaçao-licensed sportsbook with a long market list and no New Zealand standing. The trade is the same as FunBet’s: market breadth for the four named risks. A New Zealand bettor at Rabona is on a Curaçao contract, with the Department of Internal Affairs’ warning as the regulator’s published view.

RTbet

RTbet’s sportsbook covers football, tennis, table tennis, basketball, ice hockey, American football and baseball, with live betting and virtual sports. The brand is Curaçao-licensed, the same section 74AAA point applies, the same Department of Internal Affairs warning applies, the same four risks apply. The virtual-sports line is the part of the offer that the 2026 online casino law treats as casino gambling; whether RTbet’s virtual sports sit inside that framing in New Zealand is not established, and a New Zealand bettor at RTbet is in the same position as a New Zealand bettor at any other offshore brand on that question.

The market range is the offshore range: more football, more in-play, more player props than TAB NZ lists. The price is the four named risks plus whatever RTbet’s own terms add — the operator-level specifics the operator’s own terms page is the only place to read. The New Zealand complaints route is the Gambling Helpline and not the operator.

Verdict: a Curaçao-licensed bookmaker with virtual sports on the programme and no New Zealand standing. The reader who picks RTbet over TAB NZ is choosing market breadth, and the reader is paying for it in the four named risks and in the absence of a New Zealand complaints route.

Sportaza

Sportaza’s footer states it is licensed and regulated by the Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of Comoros, under licence No. ALSI-202606064-FI2; the operator’s own terms in section 1.4 also cite licence No. 0000067 issued by Tobique. Two different jurisdictions named in two different parts of the operator’s own paperwork is itself a fact a New Zealand bettor reads once and weighs once, and the rest of the section 74AAA point is unchanged: an Anjouan licence gives no right to take bets from people in New Zealand, a Tobique licence is equally invalid, and the regulator’s warning applies in full.

A bettor at Sportaza is betting under Anjouan and Tobique law, with two different licence numbers named in two different parts of the operator’s own paperwork, with the four named risks sitting on top, and with no New Zealand complaints route. The brand’s product — the same long market list the offshore brands carry — is the value on offer. The cost is what the regulator and the brand’s own paperwork each name.

Verdict: an Anjouan-licensed bookmaker with a separate Tobique number cited in the fine print and no New Zealand standing. The two-jurisdiction fact is worth weighing, because it is the operator’s own paperwork, and the Department of Internal Affairs’ warning is unchanged.

Rooster

Rooster is operated by Novatrix SRL, a company incorporated in Costa Rica with registration number 3-102-893958, under e-gaming licence No. 0000002 issued by the Tobique Gaming Commission. The Tobique licence is invalid in New Zealand; section 74AAA is in force; the regulator’s warning applies in full. The Costa Rica incorporation, the Tobique licence, and the absence of a New Zealand authorisation are the legal position.

The operator behind the brand is a separate company in a separate jurisdiction, and the operator-level rules — KYC, withdrawal time, bonus terms, cap on free-bet winnings — are Novatrix SRL’s, enforced under Tobique. A New Zealand bettor at Rooster is on a Tobique contract, with a Costa Rica company as counterparty, with the four named risks sitting on top, and with the Gambling Helpline as the only New Zealand service that can be reached. The market range is the offshore range; the price is the four named risks.

Verdict: a Tobique-licensed bookmaker operated from Costa Rica by Novatrix SRL, with no New Zealand standing. The Novatrix SRL counterparty is the name to read on the brand’s own terms, and the Department of Internal Affairs’ warning is unchanged.

RoyalistPlay

RoyalistPlay is owned and operated by Novatrix SRL — the same Costa Rica company, registration number 3-102-893958 — and states that it holds the same e-gaming licence No. 0000002 from the Tobique Gaming Commission. The same Novatrix SRL counterparty sits behind both Rooster and RoyalistPlay; a New Zealand bettor at one is on the same contract as a New Zealand bettor at the other, with the same Tobique licence in force, the same Costa Rica counterparty, the same absence of a New Zealand authorisation, and the same four named risks.

The product is the difference: RoyalistPlay’s market range and RoyalistPlay’s promotional calendar are the operator’s own choices, made by Novatrix SRL under the Tobique licence, and the operator-level rules are the same on both brands. A New Zealand bettor who has bet at one has bet, in legal terms, at the other.

Verdict: a Tobique-licensed bookmaker under the same Novatrix SRL counterparty as Rooster.bet, with no New Zealand standing. The two brands are siblings under one operator, and the Department of Internal Affairs’ warning is the same on both.

Winz

Winz states in its footer that it holds licences delivered by Anjouan and Tobique. The Anjouan licence is one of the licence types the offshore brands carry; the Tobique licence is the same one Novatrix SRL holds; the combination of two different jurisdictions in the footer is its own fact for a New Zealand bettor to weigh. Section 74AAA is in force; the regulator’s warning applies in full; the four named risks are the price.

The market range is the offshore range, with the operator’s own promotional structure on top. A New Zealand bettor at Winz is on an Anjouan-and-Tobique contract, with a Costa Rica counterparty behind the Tobique licence, with the four named risks sitting on top, and with the Gambling Helpline as the only New Zealand service that can be reached. The footer is the place to read both jurisdictions; the rest of the choice is the brand’s product.

Verdict: an Anjouan- and Tobique-licensed bookmaker with no New Zealand standing. The two-jurisdiction footer is the fact, and the Department of Internal Affairs’ warning is unchanged.

Spinbara

Spinbara advertises a first deposit bonus of 100% up to EUR 100, a sport crypto welcome bonus of 100% up to 200 USDT, and a casino welcome bonus of 100% up to EUR 500 plus 200 free spins. The brand names no licence that applies in New Zealand; section 74AAA is in force; the Department of Internal Affairs’ published warning applies in full; the four named risks are the price. The bonus structure — a deposit-gated package, in three parts, denominated in euro and USDT — is the part of the offer a New Zealand bettor reads carefully, because each part of the package carries its own wagering requirement, its own minimum price for a qualifying bet, its own deadline, and its own cap on free-bet winnings. None of those terms are subject to a New Zealand regulator.

The currency is the part of the offer a New Zealand bettor reads first. A euro-denominated bonus and a USDT-denominated bonus both mean the bettor is paying in a currency other than New Zealand dollars, and the conversion is the operator’s, taken at the operator’s rate, on the operator’s timing. A New Zealand bettor who bets in NZD on TAB NZ does not have that conversion. A New Zealand bettor who claims a euro or USDT bonus on Spinbara does.

Verdict: an unlicensed-in-New-Zealand bookmaker with a three-part deposit-gated bonus package and no New Zealand standing. The bonus is the offer, the currency is the cost, and the four named risks are unchanged.

What the ranking means in practice

A ranking of ten brands in a market of two is mostly a list, but the list has a use. A New Zealand bettor reading it sees, in the first two rows, the legal answer to the question this page is built around. In the other eight rows, the bettor sees the legal answer to the implicit second question — what an offshore bookmaker is, in the eyes of the regulator, in the eyes of the operator’s own terms, and in the eyes of the New Zealand complaints framework. The four named risks are the cost; the market range is the value; the page’s job is to put both in front of the reader without making the choice for them.

The greyhound line is the one specific change worth flagging. From 1 August 2026, commercial greyhound racing closes in New Zealand, and from that date a bet on a greyhound race is not a lawful TAB NZ bet, and an offshore bookmaker taking one is in breach of section 74AAA on top of the breach it was already in. A New Zealand bettor who follows greyhounds is looking at a market that closes in the year this page is read, and the right response is to check the TAB NZ programme for what replaces it, and to read the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill for the date the closure takes effect on the operator’s side as well as the bettor’s. The page does not predict the future of greyhound betting; the page describes the rule as the Department of Internal Affairs publishes it.

The responsible-gambling layer, and where it reaches

The responsible-gambling layer in New Zealand is short, named, and largely outside the betting side of the regime. The Gambling Helpline — 0800 654 655, with a text line at 8006 — runs the free counselling service, alongside the Safer Gambling Aotearoa programme. The Problem Gambling Levy of 0.74% of TAB NZ’s gross profit funds the infrastructure; the levy is in force from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2028. TAB NZ publishes deposit limits, time-outs and self-exclusion in its apps, and the exclusion applies across both TAB and Betcha because the two brands are one operator. The 18-and-over age rule for a TAB NZ account sits in section 89 of the Racing Industry Act 2020; betting under 18 is an offence on the bettor’s side, and a TAB NZ account is verified with a New Zealand address and ID at opening.

The national register that does not exist is worth naming. There is no single national online-betting self-exclusion register. The register the Online Casino Gambling Act 2026 will create is for online casinos only. The betting side relies on TAB NZ’s own exclusion list, applied across both brands, and on the in-app tools. A bettor who excludes from TAB NZ and Betcha but opens an account with an offshore brand is excluding from one of the field, not from betting; the offshore brand is not told, and is not obliged to act on a New Zealand exclusion. That is the practical limit of self-exclusion in a regime without a national register.

The responsible-gambling layer at an offshore bookmaker is operator-level, varies by brand, and is not subject to a New Zealand regulator. The four named risks from the Department of Internal Affairs cover the gaps: harm-minimisation may not be in place, the brand may not surface the in-app tools TAB NZ is required to surface, the brand may not return unspent credits, and the brand may not pay large wins. A New Zealand bettor at an offshore brand is relying on the operator’s own terms, and the operator’s own terms are the operator’s. The Gambling Helpline is the New Zealand service that is reachable regardless of which brand the bettor is on.

The Responsible Gambling page on this site covers the wider layer: the helpline, the text line, Safer Gambling Aotearoa, the practical tools, and the signs a bettor is moving from recreational to harmful play. The section above is the betting-specific slice of that layer, and the page’s bettor-facing point is that the in-app tools are part of the TAB NZ product, and are absent from the offshore product, and that difference is one of the four named risks the regulator has published by name.

Calculation, in plain prose

A New Zealand bettor with an illustrative monthly budget of NZ$500, staked once on a two-way market at decimal odds of 1.90 / 1.90, on average, gives up about NZ$25 of that stake to the bookmaker’s margin and gets about NZ$475 back across the long run, assuming the price is exactly symmetric and the bet is settled as a single transaction. That is a 5.0% margin on a clean 1.90 / 1.90 book — 1 ÷ (1 ÷ 1.90 + 1 ÷ 1.90) gives a payout share of 0.95, and 1 − 0.95 gives a margin of 0.05. The expected cost of turning over NZ$500 is the margin times the turnover: 5.0% × NZ$500 = NZ$25. The expected return is the other 95%, NZ$475.

The condition is the part to keep. A real market is rarely symmetric, and the more asymmetric the book, the higher the margin. A multi-leg bet multiplies the per-leg prices, and a Same Game Multi does the same in a single event, and the per-leg margins compound in the same way the prices compound. The 5.0% baseline is the cost of a clean two-way book at even money, and a real book is rarely that clean. The calculation is a statistical estimate, not a prediction of any single bet.

The same arithmetic answers a different question for a free bet or a bonus bet. The free bet’s value is the free-bet amount times the edge on the bet a bettor places it on, and the bonus’s cost is the wagering factor times the bonus base, paid out of a turnover the bettor has to complete. Neither number appears in the example above — the example is a single NZ$500 stake at 1.90 / 1.90 — and both numbers are operator-specific on TAB NZ and on every offshore brand in the ranking above. The bettor who clears a bonus is paying for the bonus in turnover and in the margin on the bets that make up the turnover, and the arithmetic is the same on both sides of the table.

What the page does not do

The page does not name a brand a New Zealand bettor relies on. The page names TAB NZ and Betcha as the only lawful options, names the eight offshore brands in the ranking as brands a New Zealand bettor meets, and names the four risks the Department of Internal Affairs has published by name. The page does not invite a reader to sign up with an offshore brand, because the Department of Internal Affairs reads the section 74AAA prohibition as covering promotion as well as offer, and the page does not predict the outcome of any bet, because no one can. The page does not generalise TAB NZ’s terms into a rule, and the page does not generalise an offshore brand’s terms into a rule, because both sets of terms are operator-level and the only place they are enforced is the operator’s own terms page.

The page also does not print a bonus code, a free-bet code, a promo code, or a voucher. The market has those; the operator cards on this site describe what each offer is worth; the codes are not the page’s. The page describes what an offer is, what it costs, and what it asks of the bettor; the claim is the bettor’s business, not the page’s.

A short read on the choice

A New Zealand bettor’s choice is not between ten brands. The legal choice is between TAB NZ and Betcha, on one side, and the eight not-licensed-in-New-Zealand rows, on the other. The product choice is wider — TAB NZ’s betslip or Betcha’s, or one of the eight offshore brands’ market ranges — and the cost of the product choice is the four named risks the regulator has published, plus whatever the brand’s own terms add on top. The page is the place that choice is written out, with the legal fact, the product, the cost, and the responsible-gambling layer all in front of the reader.

The page’s cost framing runs through the ranking and the legality sections. The page does not pick the bet for the reader; the page puts the cost in front of the reader, and the reader decides.

Frequently asked questions about legal betting in New Zealand

Are offshore betting sites legal in New Zealand?

No, in the sense the regulator means. Section 74AAA of the Racing Industry Act 2020 says no person other than TAB New Zealand may offer racing or sports betting to a person in New Zealand, and the Department of Internal Affairs has told providers serving New Zealand to withdraw. The bettor is in a different position: section 19(4) of the Gambling Act 2003 says an individual may not be convicted for placing such a bet, and no published penalty for a player was found. The page describes the four risks DIA names for an offshore bet.

How is betting on horse racing legal in New Zealand?

Through TAB NZ, on the bet types TAB NZ publishes (Win, Place, Each Way, Quinella, Exacta, Trifecta, First Four, Double, Treble, Daily Double, Running Double, Quaddie, Big6, Multis and Same Game Multis), under the Racing Industry Act 2020, in force since 28 June 2025. Harness (trots) is also a TAB NZ market; greyhound racing closes from 1 August 2026, and offshore operators may not take bets on greyhound races from that date. The page reads the racing side as the dividend-funded half of the monopoly.

Is any online sports betting legal in New Zealand?

Yes — TAB NZ and Betcha, both authorised under section 74AAA of the Racing Industry Act 2020, both run by Entain NZ. Online sports betting from any other operator is not lawful in New Zealand; the Department of Internal Affairs says it is illegal under New Zealand law for anyone except TAB NZ to offer these bets to people in New Zealand. The page treats the legal answer as the answer to the question, and the offshore side as a separate question with its own risks.

Which bookmaker may lawfully take sports and racing bets in New Zealand?

TAB New Zealand, trading online as TAB and Betcha. The Racing Industry Act 2020 names TAB NZ as the only provider; the Department of Internal Affairs administers the rule and publishes a list of two brands. There is no licence register for bookmakers, because there is only this one lawful provider. The page’s ranking puts both licensed brands in the first two rows and the rest of the field below them.

Are TAB and Betcha two different bookmakers?

No. They are the two online brands of TAB New Zealand, run by Entain NZ, both authorised under section 74AAA. The Department of Internal Affairs names TAB and Betcha together; the bet types, the in-app safer-gambling tools, and the regulatory supervision are the same. The bettor-facing difference is the app and the betslip; the underlying operator is one. The page’s first two rows are siblings under one authorisation.

Is a player punished for betting with an overseas bookmaker?

No published penalty for a player was found. Section 19(4) of the Gambling Act 2003 says an individual may not be convicted for placing a bet with an offshore operator in breach of section 74AAA. The liability sits on the offshore operator that offers the bet; the Department of Internal Affairs’ published warning names the four risks an offshore bettor takes, but the law does not punish the bettor. The page describes the choice and the four risks, and leaves the decision to the reader.

Content created by the «bettinginfo-nz» team