I Guess Thats The End For Me On Here

Winja 30 Jul 22 20:21 
i dont think they are looking to see if you have purchased a gross of fiesta durexs

They might not be looking to see if I have purchased a gross of fiesta durex's but if they see my bank statement they will be able to see, whether they want to or not and I don't want them seeing my transaction involving the purchase of a gross of fiesta durex's.

That's the point.!!

Theres one big problem with Smarkets though... fook all liquidity

If you think its bad on fair ive just tried to put £15 on over 1.5 goals on the inter game in play (smarkets) and cant get it on...

I think its basically big games and events only on there

Maybe Purple is slightly better ?

duffy i get the point but how else can they undertake their due diligence.....brentford.....i have no bookmaker accounts all have been closed and its a fooking liberty but they are allowed to under current rules......the two are not really the same.......

Thats my point with bank transactions, they aint asking for a small slip from the atm machine

They want up to 3 months (6 weeks in my instance) worth of transactions ffs, that is oersonal information and they shouldnt be asking for it

Theres nothing for me to be embarrased about either, I and others need to stand their ground and tell them to do one

Some spotty kid on chat can literally see all your banking behaviour ffs, its fooking comical

Let's see the percentage of predominant slots/casino customers targeted as oppose to sports bettors.

All things being equal, the slots players being hit should heavily outweigh the sports bettors being hit.

Let's see the figures.

If they have any suspicions about banking fraud they should be getting onto the bank about it.. but no they aint interested in that they want to see where ,y wages is going day in day out

Feck off

it would be prudent to ensure triggers operate in reasonable manner and allow for anomalies though (through reasoned discussion) ...some of the concern expressed about the methods at work is far from unreasonable and even at it's intended level are pretty borderline in appropriateness ..

levels of commitment from other companies and use of parameters as compared to here here are no to be taken lightly....serious dangers of selective use when not applied through a central mechanism.

the liquidity here for the 3pm champs games was probably as bad as i've seen. also notice they've taken down a lot of markets such as first goalscorers(even on televised games) and sending off markets that they used to always offer. place is going downhill fast

as i say you know what they are looking for and its not fraud.....so if that information is not on your statements then you have nothing to worry about and under the data protection act they can not retain the information.....im sure there is a department within betfair that deals with these issues...i cant guarantee they dont have randolph scotts but i would be surprised if it was not professionally managed.....

Senyatta

Oh I think we’re seeing the death of sports betting for sure esp the exchange

I used to love laying correct scores in the 300 challenge thread but there so poor now once you get towards £250 you cant get matched, not that I get that far 99% of the time but for people who do lay big its nye on impossible unless its on big games

This proof of funds stuff has just killed it sooner than expected

Winja

The scrote on the chat gets all the transaction stuff... if he/she can see it then anyone can.

We’re talking the internet here, nothing is wiped clean ever remember that. Every piece of data leaves a ghost trail.

What comes after this if you fall into line with giving banking and wage documents?

Skyping them your penis to make sure your balls have dropped I guess

But seriously once they get you giving them that info theyll move into the next round which could be mortgage payments? What next?

that does not sound right.....i imagined it would be an email attachment to their accounts department......that would be the only way i would send such information......

Oh you can send them it in that fasion yes

But thats worse... thats literally an email which as we know isnt exactly private either

I was told you can send it throuh a pdf on chat and them its destroyed the moment the agent on the chat has seen and verified it...

Nothing is destroyed online

the issue of a lifetime significant profit, pc charge incurring account that suddenly as it may often have, incurs a significant loss and attempts to redeposit to bring balance to appropriate levels ...is met with bank statement requirements and or wage slips ...would previous BF withdrawls be considered sufficient or would lack of direct income preclude your account remaining viably operational..that's unlikely to effect me due to previously mentioned dynamics but that is from what I gather a real concern for some even aside from moral aspects at more basic levels..

I just about gritted my teeth and gave them my id and address to verify my age and account

But sorry its getting stupid now so.. cant be going further with the dystopian bs

I said before, players have been restricted for years anyway by way of limited stakes, so that is proof if you need to see it that there has been business that the books have been quite happy to see the back of and that has been happening long before they could use the "excuse" that this has all been GOVT induced.

They want sports betting dead and long live the casino.

What's happening now to the online product is the exact same thing that is happening to bookmakers in the high street, they are vehicles to peddle the crack cocaine of gambling and nothing more....and online is heading in the same direction.

The books are taking a punt that if they make it look like they are clamping down by way of restricting certain accounts, and in a lot of cases will be customers who have previously suffered restrictions in any case they won't be analysed to see just who they are letting slip through the net.

Jul 30, 2022 -- 2:54PM, brentford wrote:

the issue of a lifetime significant profit, pc charge incurring account that suddenly as it may often have, incurs a significant loss and attempts to redeposit to bring balance to appropriate levels ...is met with bank statement requirements and or wage slips ...would previous BF withdrawls be considered sufficient or would lack of direct income preclude your account remaining viably operational..that's unlikely to effect me due to previously mentioned dynamics but that is from what I gather a real concern for some even aside from moral aspects at more basic levels..

Mate - Hope you're well?  FYI Rico Dangleflaps / Warwick Hunt et al has said he triggered the checks on the racing forum after making a few quick deposits, despite being a 7-figure lifetime winner.  Once he pointed out he was a PC payer (albeit wasn't a payer at the point he made the aforementioned deposits), his deposit limit was increased to £5k, I believe.

He's the only PC payer who I've seen say they've fallen foul of the checks to date.

good to hear a bit of common sense being applied at least Lat' - appreciate your input, and likewise hope is all is good mate..

still think the whole thing is, as so often with this stuff misguided at best...

I think it was the quick deposits that triggered mine or it must have been it wasnt said

Bit we’re talking £30 £20 £25 if it was that its pretty stupid

Jul 30, 2022 -- 3:46PM, brentford wrote:

good to hear a bit of common sense being applied at least Lat' - appreciate your input, and likewise hope is all is good mate..still think the whole thing is, as so often with this stuff misguided at best...

Yes, mate, all good, ta.

It's a shocker alright.  There have been multiple threads along similar lines to Sont's, and the general feeling seems to very much be, "if they come after me, I'll just call it a day", which seems counter-productive in the extreme.  Can't help thinking they would be better off actually explaining to punters behaviour that could see them flagged unnecessarily (as this and other threads have pointed out, not everybody trusts BF sufficiently to maintain what for them is a large balance, so they prefer to transfer in and out).  If something as simple as stopping that pattern would see them clear, surely that would be worth knowing? (especially since your account is pretty bloody secure once you enable two-step authentication)

It's all very well doing the decent thing by PC payers, but if there's no-one to bet against.....    We both know how quickly markets can enter death-spirals....

Jul 30, 2022 -- 3:51PM, SontaranStratagem wrote:

I think it was the quick deposits that triggered mine or it must have been it wasnt said Bit we’re talking £30 £20 £25 if it was that its pretty stupid

Almost certainly, Sont, which makes the whole thing all the more frustrating, I imagine!

He's the only PC payer who I've seen say they've fallen foul of the checks to date.

Think I've posted my travails with Betfair at least twice.  It was a nightmare.  December 2020

I missed that CB.  Were the circs of your similar, ie multiple deposits in a short-period of time?

And how long had it been since you last paid PC at that point, if you don't mind saying?  (forewarned is forearmed)

Yep, total agreement here Lat' - I'm probably getting too old for this stuff anyway...but I fundamentally disagree with both the implementation and lack of transparency...

if I get blocked, I'll shrug on a personal level but I remember how unique this opportunity was and seeing yet more damage to it's original potential and inappropriate targeting when so much of the industry seems to be remarkably untouched (that may be an illusion on my part as I don't use most of it)  is yet another sad moment in a business area that constantly is supported by govt in it's true failings...whether it's losers only bookmakers, high stakes FOBT's against fixed 10 % plus margins , phone apps with non skill games that can cost naive people thousands again at 10% plus rake I'll wager (irony)

You can only take people at face value over what they say on here, but so many of those caught up in this are adamant that they don't play any of the peripheral BS that "bookmakers" serve up that it does make you wonder about the real motives, as you say...  Throw a few sports bettors to the GC overseers and let the really valuable mugs (I mean clients, aka those with actual gambling problems) carry on doing their nads scot free....

Where does it end?

The really pi33 poor thing is I opted out of their casino bs and still get loads of their ads for their idiotic slots, I think we know they aint motivated to ditch those players

Doing your balls on a slot is actively encouraged and no checks are ever carried out

yep, golden age age of betting lasted about 4 years max ....no ?

enough money on exchanges to make them viable ..2003-2007...different ownership ...pc charge...more drastic pc charge...promotion of sportsbook  over exchange...

I do reserve a bit of judgement on the specifics here but yet more negative travel...

Lat I did deposit a lot... £50k.  I was asked for ID and proof of funds which I sent.  I was even told they were OK.  Then they still suspended.  I definitely paid a chunk in PC just before they suspended as the reason I made the deposit was to oppose Trump.  Thankfully I withdrew all but £5k either the same week or the following week before they suspended.

Jul 30, 2022 -- 4:28PM, SontaranStratagem wrote:

The really pi33 poor thing is I opted out of their casino bs and still get loads of their ads for their idiotic slots, I think we know they aint motivated to ditch those players Doing your balls on a slot is actively encouraged and no checks are ever carried out

Someone said the other day that their Exchange exposure limit is set to £5k while their "Casino games" limit is set to £100k!  (by default)  Tells you a lot!

Jul 30, 2022 -- 4:32PM, brentford wrote:

yep, golden age age of betting lasted about 4 years max ....no ?enough money on exchanges to make them viable ..2003-2007...different ownership ...pc charge...more drastic pc charge...promotion of sportsbook

I'd go 2002 to 2008 (when the first PC charge came in), but yeah!

Jul 30, 2022 -- 4:42PM, CLYDEBANK29 wrote:

Lat I did deposit a lot... £50k.

And they suspended the account again for no new reason 3-6 months later.

Actually, that does ring bells for me, CB!  Would that have been a big deposit for you?  (it would have been a chuffing huuuuuuuuuuuuge one for me!  )

Jul 30, 2022 -- 4:46PM, CLYDEBANK29 wrote:

And they suspended the account again for no new reason 3-6 months later.

Really?

Yes it was a one off.  £5-£10k wouldn't have been too abnormal.

And there was no justification at all for the second one?

Yes really.  I even got a patronising concerned phone call some time after that which was bewildering.  I think once you are "marked" they don't remove it, even if it should never have been there in the first place.

So no losing run, or string of deposits, or anything?

Other than a few emails after losing days (and a couple of "we've noticed changes in your betting patterns" pop-ups when I started betting on the horses again at the conclusion of the snooker season), touch wood, I've not had anything to date....

No losing run and possibly not a single extra deposit.  Mebbe a grand max.  Annoying thing was I would've laid Brian Rose to be London Mayor for at least £20k, but I just thought it wasn't worth the potential risk of having the account suspended again.  Then the account got suspended anyway!

How bizarre....  That's really bad, actually, if you've given them no additional cause for concern... 

Agree with Brentford about the golden age from 2003-2007.  What happened in 2007 was that Paul Nichols, with Kauto Star, won the Betfair Millions and to pay for it we were faced by a stiff hike in commission rates in 2008 meaning that the vast majority were put on 5% or close to it.  Premium Charge followed close on it's heels, but liquidity had now peaked and was going into decline.  The current rate of 2% came in too late to stop the rot and was only a response to what Betdack had been doing for a while.

I did actually leave in 2010, before they could to steal some money off me.  But, at the time I found Betdack to be unviable and I eventually came back here and let them take the money that they claimed I owed them.

Oh the patronisoing concerned phone call is the best ive heard (as in the worst but sarcasm I suspect)

The magic card they love ti use to basically put all the problems being you and not them, whilst pretending they care so much despite robbing you blind into the bargin ffs

The old tricks that only work on a very gullible society

Sont,

What were they describing it as, "affordability" or "proof of income"

If it is proof of income then you should be  able to redact everything bar entries pertaining to income.

If its affordability then a bank statement and wage slips wouldn't suffice in isolation anyhow because you'd need a complete breakdown of all your outgoings, mortgage/rent, weekly shopping, energy costs, pension, insurance, fuel etc etc.

Plus for most who are in a partnership then there is probably the partner's statement that would have a portion of the household outgoings going through it, if they want an accurate representation of "affordability" then they'd need to see your partners statements.

However they are not asking for any of this stuff and the reason is that they talk about affordability and such like, this is really a ruse in order to gradually strangle the life out of the sports bettors.

What would turn things on its head is if GOVT forced the books to reveal the percentages of what type of bettor has been targeted particularly if it was shown that they had not been even handed with sports/casino players.

That’s speculation, you don’t know that to be true that they act disproportionately towards slot and sports betting users.

There are a number of differing things being conflated here, bf have always had some degree of responsibility towards a). New levels of gambling b). Money laundering
You would get a call (and account frozen) years ago on both of those matters. Even if you cleared the area of concern it doesn’t automatically mean you get Carter Blanche from there on, you could for obvious reasons pass money laundering one week then start money laundering for eg.

The PC identifier just highlights how vulnerable a user is (or not) and it’s the calculation that determines whether you pay it is very likely the same to determine affordability (which is separate to money laundering etc) Rico may well have a lifetime profit, but at the time in question he stopped profiting, meaning his churn lowered his gross to com ratio so he got the question as everyone would I suspect.


The whole thing is mired in the opaque way bf have never really been open with what they do, this is no different.
I don’t believe they want to kill the exchange, it’s their USP and they have a monopoly on it but that’s not to say the whole premise of superficial MP initiated direction of data gathering and/or irrational approach to gambling restriction would stand up in court.
Remember who encouraged all this and what they used as their arguments, they took myopic views believing MPs would fix all their personal angst with bookie operation, and/or force bookies to drop slots and encourage proper bookmaking again. Well they were wrong then and they are wrong now, this is enterprise you don’t get to cherry pick the bits that you like.
Bf as others should be allowed to sell their wares as any other company, if you have a problem then the onus is with you to seek the help that is available….anything that deviates from that creates a disparity of issues that we see being played out now.

There are a couple of other issues raised here that I’ve now looked at, and I’m in no way defending this requirement, I’ve made it very clear I’m against the need to provide evidence simply to be allowed to bet how you wish.

Somebody said they receive marketing emails for slots etc (presumably unwanted)….All marketing whether gambling or not has a responsibility to be appropriate, with the receiver being in control. All emails have to have the option to unsubscribe, it’s right down at the bottom in the small print. Give it 7 days from the point of registering your disinterest and if they still send then contact them direct;y, they will have to take this seriously now.
On that issue, this is where we have ended up, blame everyone culture. Just take back control it’s not difficult.

On banking information. It’s advisable to show caution, but there are serious ramifications for mismanaging data such as this. If you go to my account there’s a document uploaded, this is a secure link. If they say they destroy the data after viewing then they must, if they don’t they can be fined heavily. It’s further speculation bordering on paranoia saying they will be irresponsible.

Beyond all this, if you really want to pass the credentials then open up a separate bank account/ bond with adequate funds showing. Sure it’s a bind but again it’s just good housekeeping. I’ve had a designated bank for gambling for over 10 years, everyone should consider getting their accounts in order based on the environment they find themselves in.

This leaves us with the ethics. Ofc people should be annoyed, but it’s the hand wringing MPs who are out of line, you should be getting p1ssed off with them, they don’t really care about your freedom, they are bending over to the ill thought out emotional lot, the same who haven’t thought out the gender cr4p and listened to the voices who supplied confirmation biases. Now the whole information is landing and the picture is changing….as will the gambling environment once this made period has been weathered.

*mad

I read this and I automatically thought of Affordability Checks ..........

Ms J.T. writes: In April, I was on holiday in Tenerife with my partner when he suffered a massive heart attack and died. After getting myself back home, I needed to bring him home so I contacted his bank, NatWest, as his account included travel insurance. I supplied his death certificate, but a month later I checked his emails and there were endless messages from NatWest, asking him to get in touch about his claim. I emailed and called, reminding the bank that the claim was for the £3,000-plus cost of bringing his body back, and unfortunately the dead body could not contact them. Tony Hetherington replies: You might think that you had gone far enough by reminding them, but no. Letters began to arrive from NatWest, all addressed to your dead partner, asking him to make contact. You gave me one that was sent to him in June, saying: 'We've tried to contact you as we need some information to progress your claim. Please give us a call.'  Tried to contact you! For heaven's sake – what were they using? A medium? A ouija board?

You called the bank again and again, and eventually you said you wanted to make an official complaint. The result? Another letter urging your late partner to get in touch!
All this was from the travel insurance side of the business. Meanwhile, NatWest's banking operation was fine. It closed your partner's account and sent you the balance as you are the executor of his estate.  The closest you got to an explanation was in one of your many phone calls to NatWest. When you explained once more that there was no point in asking a dead man to give them a call, the speaker told you that emails and letters were automatically generated and 'the computer settings could not be altered'. You told me that the whole episode was a macabre version of the Little Britain sketch, with you insisting that your partner was dead and could not give them a ring, and NatWest insisting: 'Computer says no!'

What a load of whingers, upload your docs new season starting soon!! Betfair don't care u only on min wage sonts, just following the new regs..

"Beyond all this, if you really want to pass the credentials then open up a separate bank account/ bond with adequate funds showing. Sure it’s a bind but again it’s just good housekeeping. I’ve had a designated bank for gambling for over 10 years, everyone should consider getting their accounts in order based on the environment they find themselves in."

Dusty, I don't think they will care you much you have in the bank or big gambling winnings from yesterday and back in time. What they want is to see regular non-gambling income wages or pension etc.

Same as  McCarthy and Stone with my mother.  Didn't care about property she owns now or capital in the bank. Just how much in pensions coming in each month.

What is adequate funds

Theres loads of speculation howard as to what they actually want, and unless they actually say what they want to the person when they ask for it it will be open for debate.

Ive said a few times if people are concerned about privacy and the request is 'source of funds' then capital counts towards that and opening a bond (can get 6mth bonds paying 2% atm) would be a way of doing that and cutting out all the personal info. (that is if they accept that, which they should)

There was another issue I hadnt highlighted. This horrible rhetoric 'The Crack Cocaine of Gambling' (refering to fobts/slots)
Well this is obsolete given the fact the MPs used it to poison the nation as to the general ills of betting. You cant define the singular dangers (albiet tiny) of fobt/slots and group them with the general activities of all gambling by using Affordability as a weapon, but that is exactly what they did. If they had a problem with the 'crack cocaine' part, then limit to only slots.

It should always have been a simple question of anyone wanting to play slots- 'Is this for entertainment, or do you believe you will make a profit?
Answer profit, then the user needs taking to one side and educating.
The rest just left alone.

Say I'm restricted too 100 a month
I show them a bank statement with 10k or 20k or 50k
In it. What will they put my limit up to

Think somebody said bf calculate it as 0.5% per month

It would help if bf did their own damn clarification through a newsletter of another QA
The problem is those that bought the exchange years ago arnt great at innovation.

0.5 can't be right.
As for Rico 5k deposit limit a month?
That not be  much good when he lays 1000 shots

I cant verify it one way or the other just reporting what Id read on here, though it seems dependent on the individual experience.

But why cant 0.5% be right?
They wont calculate it on sustainability more on annuity Id imagine. I doubt if bookies have a responsibility to think of protecting your nest egg.

The state calculates a ridiculous rate of return on capital for its own purposes that is impossible to attain unless you put it into some banana republic cyrpto scheme

These Affordability Checks are just the start of a process to control the population.  Gamblers are just an easy target and the masses can be convinced that this a justifiable action. But, in the end, they will come for everyone.  It will be NeoCommunism:  At first just a cashless society.  Then a system of electronic rationing of resources, such as energy and healthcare.  Once this rationing has become common place, even electronic money can be scrapped.  They will claim that this will stop undesirable practices such as gambling and prostitution.  People who try to escape the new system by hording gold will be firstly demonized and then prosecuted.  You don't have to watch Neil Oliver's monologue to see what is happening.  The OP says that this is the end for him, but eventually it will be the end for all our freedoms.

Former profitable punter here,about £180k net up on lifetime p+l.Now i just have occasional recreational bets and am losing slowly so the balance of the account is generally less than £1000 .I can easily live without BF.
Theres no way i would acquiesce to BF poking its nose into how i spend my money.
So the question is ,does anyone know if i am asked to do a affordibility check and i refuse point blank ,if i tell them to close te account will they hand over the balance?

Rico on 5k a day limit

I was on £5K a day until I used it.

Well over £50K in PC since last year and on a new limit of £100/month.

Disgraceful

Basically I think its them saying winning will not be tolerated full stop with all this now

Even small losses are frowned upon it seems as well

Basically do you balance on casino games or feck off is their attitude

I say again, how can it be affordability if all they are asking for is wage slips and bank statements.

You can't judge someones affordability by seeing their income alone.

If you bring in 10k a week but somehow have 10k and £1 going out you can't afford it.

If you bring in £500 a week and have £50 going out you can afford it.

Only a complete break down of all incomings and OUTGOINGS will determine affordbility.

So no, it isn't anything to do with afforability and it isn't anything to do with proof of income because if it was you could redact everything else.

This whole thing IMO, is designed to filter out unwanted players and the current climate has given them the cover story to carry it out.

Duffy

Thats a good post

So far they aint actually banning anyone that provides the statements and other stuff, just putting them on a limit which doesnt match their incomings and outgoings as you said above

They aint checking all that

Hi SS,

No they aren't checking all that and as I said earlier also, they'd need to go even further still because as most of us are living in a household with partners there will be bills coming out of a partners bank that aids me.

To check MY affordability accurately they would also need to see my partners bank statements and wage slips too.

Income alone without the context of an accurate outgoing reveal means diddly squat.

I haven't had a call yet but one thing that has occurred to me is that I should expect one simply as an act of spite from being critical of them on these threads, I have thought that they must have people reading these threads.

Exactly Dufft top post again

Try saying this on the chat or over the phone to the muppets that are hired to take the rants and insults, its like talking to the wall in the corner, just constantly on re loop for about an hour

Amd in the end its basically you with the problem not them, you can expect mental health to be brought into it as well at some point, they luuurve that card do the gastapo fools.

Another one who got the checks gave his bank statement and was allowed to carry on gambling once hed uploaded the thing to the chat, they must unpaused his account about 25 seconds after he said

So they aint even checking these things ffs, they must be keeping them as well

Just unpaused *

JML • July 31, 2022 8:59 PM BST
I was on £5K a day until I used it.

Well over £50K in PC since last year and on a new limit of £100/month

If this is the case you can’t be dealing with the ‘customer service’ dept (or whoever are dealing with these requests) you will get the ear of the CEO
How does he justify such an action when you alone ‘pay’ enough towards his staff’s wages to probably pay 4 salaries, to have been determined to be some kind of problem gambler?

The whole notion that they can help themselves to £50k of your winnings and then tell you you can't afford it is farcical in the extreme.  Maybe suggest they waive your future PC payments to help make it more affordable for you?  (granted that's probably what they're effectively doing to themselves with your revised deposit limit)

How long has this been going on, JML?

PC isn’t money lost at gambling, it’s an artificial charge that states in the tc’s is applied to the fraction of most successful customers

Ergo, they recognise you don’t have a gambling problem, or do have a gambling problem and added charges in error.

If bf really are going down this route I’d be happy to have all my PC that was wrongly taken and never log in again.

If this is the case you can’t be dealing with the ‘customer service’ dept (or whoever are dealing with these requests) you will get the ear of the CEO
How does he justify such an action when you alone ‘pay’ enough towards his staff’s wages to probably pay 4 salaries, to have been determined to be some kind of problem gambler?


The complaints dept put me on £5K/day a few months ago but I knew it could change to as little as £100/month at any time
so my account balance has been at least 5 times what's needed.In the days leading up to Champions Lge final I decided to top up my account
by £5K on 3 consecutive days which lead to the dreaded phone call.

When he said £100 I said fine,no problems and imediately he said that he's had a closer look and my limit was £600,
although he never actually changed it on my account.If I had complained about the £100 there would have been no mention of the £600.

So you were already on their radar, hence the original complaint?

Was that the same MO?  Multiple deposits over a relatively short period of time?

Jul 31, 2022 -- 5:53PM, duffy wrote:

I say again, how can it be affordability if all they are asking for is wage slips and bank statements.You can't judge someones affordability by seeing their income alone.If you bring in 10k a week but somehow have 10k and £1 going out you can't afford it.If you bring in £500 a week and have £50 going out you can afford it.Only a complete break down of all incomings and OUTGOINGS will determine affordbility.So no, it isn't anything to do with afforability and it isn't anything to do with proof of income because if it was you could redact everything else.This whole thing IMO, is designed to filter out unwanted players and the current climate has given them the cover story to carry it out.

They will want a certified accountant income and expenditure account next

Just a shame non of its competitors have ever really been able to challenge their market share
Smarkets is ok, but they don't have the range of markets that I like to bet on
Plus they have bots filling up the liquidity & it can completely disappear
Also the bots (to the millisecond) track BF's odds

So the question is ,does anyone know if i am asked to do a affordibility check and i refuse point blank ,if i tell them to close te account will they hand over the balance?

hector, this happened with my brother and a process is started where it is looked at by some team or other and they make a decision. Luckily for him he received an email stating the balance would be sent to him after the live chat he had when he objected strongly to his money being held against his will. Would like to think this would apply to all but if so, why is  it referred to others to decide??

Also I might add, he did get 2 weeks to provide these docs and that was ample time to withdraw the majority of his account. Kept playing til it was paused and the above applied to what he had left in there.

So you were already on their radar, hence the original complaint?

Was that the same MO?  Multiple deposits over a relatively short period of time?

Originaly,I answered all the questions and my deposit limit remained on £5K a day.
A few days later my account was suspended because I said that I made use of
the cooling off periods and they had a follow up question that needed answering.
When they couldn't tell me when they would get in touch to re open my account I sent a message to
the CEO.

HGS,Thank you.

Jul 31, 2022 -- 5:53PM, duffy wrote:

I say again, how can it be affordability if all they are asking for is wage slips and bank statements.You can't judge someones affordability by seeing their income alone.If you bring in 10k a week but somehow have 10k and £1 going out you can't afford it.If you bring in £500 a week and have £50 going out you can afford it.Only a complete break down of all incomings and OUTGOINGS will determine affordbility.So no, it isn't anything to do with afforability and it isn't anything to do with proof of income because if it was you could redact everything else.This whole thing IMO, is designed to filter out unwanted players and the current climate has given them the cover story to carry it out.

Couldn't agree more Duffy, get this man a beer !!

If bf really are going down this route I’d be happy to have all my PC that was wrongly taken and never log in again.

Agree, Duffy:
If it was a choice between submitting bank statements and carrying on or being offered back the stolen money if I would just leave, I'd take back my money (which they stole) and just go.

Timber

Smarkets is shocking sorry

Its ok for small bets but for big players they might as well not even go to the lenghts of opening an account

In football?

They have plenty of liquidity

See ya Sonts mate

It is for the lower leagues in various countries I find

The big games its fine for what I want

Will still post on here block

Aug 1, 2022 -- 5:53AM, JML wrote:

So you were already on their radar, hence the original complaint?Was that the same MO?

Thanks for the reply, JML.

I guess we'll just have to wait for any new regulations/law.

2 things that will never change is that Bookmakers are only interested in making as much
profit as possible and it's in their interest to allow customers to deposit as much as possible,
without breaking any regulations.

So well said duffy.

Deposit, eh? Had to look this up!

deposit
noun
US  /dɪˈpɑz·ɪt/
deposit noun [C] (MONEY)

an amount of money paid into an account:

She made a large deposit last Thursday.