Question for full timers in the UK - How much did you reveal on the census form?

Q 34.  Market Analyst

Q 37.  Analysing Market Trends

Just failed to mention that it's the betting market.

I'm not a full timer but if I were I would have just said I was an independent bookmaker.

Independent bookmakers require licensing and are liable for betting tax, levy and income tax.

Not a wise choice imo, ror.

I've had this on a couple of previous censuses. Prior to going full-time in 1990 I was a self-employed translator, and am still registered as such with the Revenue. I simply haven't done any work or returned a Declaration since 1990.

So I simply put self-employed translator in the boxes and tick 15 hours or less for number of hours worked.

Not had any comeback from such an approach in the last couple of censuses. (I'm assuming here that the Revenue and other interested parties do comb through these responses looking to trap people, regardless of assurances of privacy.)

I said

34. Superhero

37. Cracking down on crime in the local town

Q.34 Speculating in futures.

Short term investor. (6 furlongs short enough?)

thanks for the replies, like screaming there is a paranoid part of me sure someone will be going over these in minute detail looking for any discrepancies.

i was going to put almost exactly the same as TheAnorak but then thought someone could think i should possibly be paying tax on that, so maybe exchange gambler or gambler was the way to go

in reality i don't think anyone will care either way!

funnily enough i came across this online, a list of Victorian occupations to help decipher the 1891 census.

http://www.census1891.com/occupations-g.htm

Gamester - gambler or prostitute

I was just going to put not working. Seemed the best option to me unless I am missing something.

unemployed

considering that the census has been contracted out by the Government to Lockheed Martin (who are also our our friendly local suppliers  of Trident Missiles), i'd be quite cautious about p*ssing them off with smart@rse answers ... after all, they know where you live !

The form didn't mention recreational activities so I didn't write any.

Are we talking about a census form here?  Is it not the case that the information provided cannot be passed on to any third party including the government / state?  This is the case in Ireland anyway

Was there a census?  :)

When I saw there is a penalty involved for not completing it, I threw it in the bin in protest. How dare they think they own my time, I need every minute to make posts on the forum!

If I did complete it, I would put unemployed.

I'll say it never arrived in the post..

If they ever get around to asking!

They have to impose a penalty otherwise you'll just get loads of people not filling it in.  As for what people should put down, I really have no idea why you don't just put professional gambler down.  It undermines the whole purpose of the census if people are not truthful.

Putting down Professional Gambler as employment implies it's a regular, reliable source of income, i.e a genuine business, hence liable for taxation and possibly licensing.

The reason that propunters escape income tax is an ancient court judgement which distinguished gambling from bookmaking because of differing expectations of profit: the gambler was not acting in a "business-like" way.

Call gambling "employment" and you are offering the Revenue a chance to bypass that judgement.

a) I'm not telling the Inland Revenue that I'm employed as a gambler.  I put it on the Census form.  It's not for their eyes.

b) Whether one calls it "employment" or not is immaterial.  They can't make some gamblers who are up over a sufficiently long period of time, eligible for income tax, and others not, merely because the former label their activity as employment!  That would be absurd.

I'm certainly not going to lie on the Census form.  We all have a duty to be as truthful as possible.

Why would you put Gambler on a Census form? [smiley:crazy]

As long as the census form insists on knowing your full name, current address and previous address, I am not prepared to assume the compilers won't be sharing the information with other interested parties.

What else should I put?  I don't do any other work.  Gambling is my only source of income (despite not making that much).  So as far as I can see it's the only appropriate thing for me to put down.

Well, for questions 26 and 30 I'd say that last week you were 'none of the above' and 'other'.

the register has an article on this you might want to read. Partially opinion of course, but .. well all you need to know is it meets the Labour standard of data confidentiality - not very much.

(I'm not a pro gambler, in fact I pride myself on my amateurism :P)

Gambling is not illegal.  There's no reason to lie about what you're doing to make a living.  And I'll be telling the inland revenue what I'm doing anyway.  It's up to them to define whether it is officially designated as employment, a declarable or non-declarable income etc.

If you put 'unemployed' no-one could make a valid claim that you were lying.

I'm not sure what the disadvantage is in saying I'm a gambler.  Or to put it another way; how do I gain by describing myself as "unemployed"?   Too late now anyway since I've already filled and sent the form off.

I believe not employed is correct over unemployed.

Section 39 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 is, so the Act says, about "Confidentiality of personal information"; in practice the section achieves the precise opposite. Section 39(1) begins well enough. It states that: "Subject to this section, personal information held by the Board in relation to the exercise of any of its functions must not be disclosed by (a) any member or employee of the Board, (b) a member of any committee of the Board, or (c) any other person who has received it directly or indirectly from the Board."

However, Section 39(4) then states that the disclosure prohibition in section 39(1) "does not apply to a disclosure which (take a deep breath):

a) is required or permitted by any enactment,

b) is required by a Community obligation,

c) is necessary for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Board to exercise any of its functions,

d) has already lawfully been made available to the public,

e) is made in pursuance of an order of a court,

f) is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not in the United Kingdom),

g) is made, in the interests of national security, to an Intelligence Service,

h) is made with the consent of the person to whom it relates, or

i) is made to an approved researcher."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/confidentiality_of_census_data_not_guaranteed/

I think a clear answer is needed as to why it is advantageous to conceal the fact that your sole income is from gambling.

It's not advantageous but it's not classed as a job so it's incorrect to put that on the census.

In some circumstances it's advantageous to conceal it because the taxman will come and give you a pain in the backside (Even if you're legitimate) as it's a common claim to be a winning gambler amongst people who DO have something to hide. Assuming the census is as confidential as it should be, then there's no problem either way I shouldn't think.

I guess you could say that if too many people put it, the gvt would have more power to tax it.

Unemployable gambler will do me  [;)]

Lori
Date Joined: 20 Apr 04
Add contact | Send message
When: 30 Mar 11 20:55
Joined:
Date Joined: 20 Apr 04
| Topic/replies: 32,526 | Blogger: Lori's blog
I believe not employed is correct over unemployed.

What's the difference? Unemployed is temporary and not employed is not?

Unemployed, I believe, is claiming benefits. I'm no expert though and could well be wrong, but that's stuck in my head from somewhere.

(I don't mean from the days of "unemployment benefit" I think my sources was better than that... though again, it's fogged by bad memory somewhat)

*Which would probably make your definition correct anyway!

It's to do with tax (Unemployment benefits and their ilk are taxed) if I'm recalling correctly.

Looking around google, it seems the term im looking for is "Jobless" and I can only find distinctions between the two in the USA, so don't know if there is one here or not.

Unemployed and not claiming benefit and not seeking work would adequately describe the position of full time gambler.

Gosh I'm confused for the last six years I've told the IR my only source of income is from gambling, with no problems.....When actually what I am is unemployed and  a compulsive gambler who makes a profit.

Where/How/Why did you tell them? (genuinely curious)

As I understand it, there's only need to do this if you have some other income (For instance you earn £100 for a writing article, you then should declare the £100 - even though it's under the threshhold - and then it's wise to attach notes as to how you've been living on £100 a year)

Again, as I understand it, which could well be wrong, there's no need to tell them anything at all if gambling is your sole income. Clearly I'd like to be put right if this is wrong.

I put what par said

Unemployed and not claiming benefit and not seeking work

Where/How/Why did you tell them?
  The only time I have spoken to anyone in the tax office was about seven years ago when I asked if gambling winnings were taxable, they said no and asked if I had any tips.  Since then the only form I send in is for a rebate on tax paid on bank interest.  I always enclose a note saying that apart from bank interest my only income has been from gambling, which is true. Never had a problem (touch wood)

I went with the none of the above / not seeking work route, giving details of my last real job about 5 years ago.  The only downside is that in 100 years time if any of my descendants get into genealogy they will think I was some sort of tramp.  But even if the info is not shared and is only used statistically I figured we probably don't want the government to know how many people are earning a living from gambling.  I mean, according to Betfair there are none in the UK, and who am I to argue?

Total Bosman has totally nailed it imo.

Cheers Ron, that makes sense

What else should I put?  I don't do any other work.  Gambling is my only source of income (despite not making that much).  So as far as I can see it's the only appropriate thing for me to put down.

Even though it may be your sole form of income, gambling is not classed as an occupation.  It's the equivalent of putting down 'Stamp Collector'.

Philately will get you anywhere.

im surprised at how many people are making a living from gambling. how much are you all making on an average week?

43 quid I reckon.

i once made 48 pounds in a single week, although i couldn't do it now, game's got a lot harder

anyone who claims they make more than 70 pounds a week is just trying to wind frog up

There has never been an average week for me, Paulol.

From autumn 1989 to spring 2005 I went racing (mostly jumps) nearly every day.

In 1989-90 I won £13,000 with £3,000 expenses, in 1990-91 I won £54,000 with £5,000 expenses. There followed a few years winning between £20,000 and £30,000, except for 1994-95, where I was down £26,000 at one point and finally got it level.

By 1998-99 and 1999-2000 I won £82,000 and £63,000 respectively, with annual expenses of £9,000.


Then Betfair appeared.


My annual profits dwindled first to £20,000, then £12,000, until by 2005 I was losing. Annual expenses had risen to £10,000, the fixture list had exploded, I had a backlog of 40 days of unwatched videos.

I gave up.

I fiddled around on Betfair, then tried the form book again without the time and expense of going racing. Over 4 years I lost £5,000.

For the last year I have bet full-time on cricket and for the last couple of months to very tiny stakes in-running on horse racing. I am £5,000 up on cricket and £2,000 up on in-running horse racing. For the first time in a decade I feel a bit of confidence when I wake up in the morning, but it's still less than minimum wage per hour.

wow thanks for that screamo.

so when you say "went racing" you were at the racecourse meet everyday!?

sounds like since the birth of betfair you've earned alot less mate.

when were you last in regular employment? if you don't mind me asking

Yes. Went to a course nearly every day, from Musselburgh to Newton Abbot.

One thing I'm grateful for: I appreciated how wonderful each day was at the time. So often in life you only appreciate the good times when they're gone.

Pre-Betfair I was betting against bookmakers who priced up on the basis of an hour skimming through the Sporting Life on the way to the races. On the strength of that some would bet in thousands.

Post-Betfair I'm taking on the best and hardest-working punters on the planet. Any errors I'm able to spot are available just fleetingly and for peanuts.

Put it this way: I had an edge betting with bookmakers operating 130% books that disappeared with Betfair's 100.1% books. The market became too efficient.

I had a couple of office jobs translating patents and medical texts in the mid- to late-80s. I hated those offices. I always felt the real life was out in the fresh air at the racecourses. I started working from home, but stopped taking on any more work at the end of 1990 when I started to make the punting pay.

The irony is that I'm now stuck in front of this wretched computer scratching a living, while out in the fresh air on the racetracks the bookmakers scratch a living arbing onto here.

you sound like an interesting chap. i would rather work from home. how did you manage that? not the betting part.

I'd worked in each of my employer's offices for a couple of years, so they knew I could do the job, In addition I could offer them something they would find hard to find if they simply advertised for a replacement.

In my case it was a knowledge of US English: not just the spelling, but the style and vocabulary too.

So the lesson, if you want to become self-employed and work from home, is to put yourself in a position where potential employers need you as much as you need them.

interesting reading - Screaming .

Must have been a great life visiting racecourses for a living SBTW. I guess the lesson is Paulol not to take anything for granted, betting/life can change in an instant

That's exactly the point I was trying to make, Coachbuster.

What's more, it took me years to realize that betting/life had changed after Betfair arrived.

After all. I'd had horrendous losing runs during the 1990s, but overall, after a decade I was on a fantastic roll. It took me several years to understand that the odds I was taking from bookies were no longer their own opinions. They were now having their cards marked for them by Betfair.

It seems obvious looking back now, but at the time it took a lot of lateral thinking to appreciate that a medium offering zero overround and unrestricted access could ruin the game for a formbook punter who did the work.

It's one of the great problems of gambling long-term and expecting/needing to make a long-term profit: how can you tell whether you are just enduring another long, bad losing run or you are in fact gone at the game?

Screaming, wd you win if you cd get on in the mornings?

Purely hypothetical.

I couldn't get more than a fiver on in the mornings either on here or with the bookmakers.

Besides, I'd only give any morning winnings away on all the afternoon losers which are so easy to back thanks to Betfair.

Pre-Betfair there was a limit to the price to which a horse could drift that was lame/ill/hooked-up/doped/not doped. If bookies pushed a price out too far they would be left betting overbroke and guaranteed a loss.

Post-Betfair, if more than two people have inside information that a horse is no good, there is no limit to how big and tempting a price it can reach. The jockey's agent goes 3.1, his brother-in-law has to go 3.2 to make sure he lays it. By the time the farrier has taken his 10 grand out of it the horse is 6.0.

It drives me potty when Betfair apologists claim that the exchange is great because it signals which horses are no good on a given day, because they drift from 3.0 to 6.0. The problem is that it doesn't happen in one leap. At 3.5 it looks good value and worth a punt; at 4.0 it's worth a top-up; at 6.0 you can see you've been stitched up and there's no way out.

Nice insight Screaming, sounds like cricket is the way forward for you, GL.

Thanks, Trev.

Yes. And I love the sport of cricket too. It's a pleasure rather than a chore.

Great post screaming from beneaththewaves.Was really interesting to read that.

Pretty much sums up how things have changed for the traditional value seeking form book based punter over the last ten years.

Screaming, as I started to bet bigger through pricing-up and price-taking strategies, I soon found that my accounts were limited and that the bf morning liquidity was tumbleweed.

I've had to evolve from a conventional backer into a layer and full-booker, tho' I'm only going up early w/ what I consider the worst 30-60% of the field. I'm using drip-feeding to take bad prices and market movements to reverse on runners where there are reasons for supposing the form to be particularly questionable.

Bf is not much good for backers--even when there's value at sufficient volume close to the off, the proportion of legitmate, winning-compiler selections that are (in fact) not-off will always weigh heavily on those horses that run as you expect. They'll eat into yr profits, as you describe, or eat through them altogether.

It's a recipe for frustration--look at people like feck. Imv, you need to use the technology in another way--to bring yr expertise on getting the most information out of market movements, to bet (in an automated way) more often at smaller edges to eke a profit.

And you'd be right it's a chore. I earn much less per hour on here than I wd otherwise. I'm a betting addict so it's hard to scale back.

Economically inactive

According to the ONS, there are 38 million people of working age. Of these, just under 8.2 million are economically inactive – not in employment or self-employment, but not classified as unemployed either.

The main reasons why people are economically inactive are:

- Slightly over 2.3 million are students
- A bit under 2.3 million are looking after their family/home.
- Just over 2 million are long-term sick.
- Just under 600,000 describe themselves as retired.

No mention of Betfair traders.......so take your pick.

That'll be the 2 million sick

I certainly wouldn't describe myself as 'economically incactive'.

lol lori .... i would say retirement ...regardless of age

"It drives me potty when Betfair apologists claim that the exchange is great because it signals which horses are no good on a given day, because they drift from 3.0 to 6.0. The problem is that it doesn't happen in one leap. At 3.5 it looks good value and worth a punt; at 4.0 it's worth a top-up; at 6.0 you can see you've been stitched up and there's no way out"

The problem with that argument is that many horses which reach 6.0 from an original 3.0 DO win.

It's simple, if you make a horse 3.0 and you see 6.0, lump on! Sure on some occasions it will run "unaccountably" badly, but other times it will win and you more than make up your losses. Don't forget lots of times the drift can be accounted for by people guessing, not because they know it is dodgy....

You are correct,have more on!!

According to the ONS, there are 38 million people of working age. Of these, just under 8.2 million are economically inactive – not in employment or self-employment, but not classified as unemployed either.

Apparently less than half the population of the UK work, and of those over 6 million are employed in the public sector and don't generate new money. Take in to consideration the early retirement ages and salary related pensions of millions of already retired public sector workers, and the mind boggles! That's an awful lot of non working people to support and a monumental monthly pension bill.

No wonder petrol is £6.50 a gallon and taxed at over 200%, it'll hit £10 a gallon soon, we're being conditioned to accept it, but it's all right we've been given 1p a litre back in a piss taking gesture... oops ranting off topic, go to bed...

Turtleshead: It's simple, if you make a horse 3.0 and you see 6.0, lump on!

How the hell do you know it's going to end up at 6.0 if you make it 3.0?

If you make a horse 3.0 and it drifts to 3.5, you have your bet. Then it drifts to 4.0. You back it again.

Then it drifts to 4.5. You back it again.

Then it drifts to 5.0. You back it again.

Then it drifts to 5.5. You back it again.

Then it drifts to 6.0. You already have more on this horse than any other you have ever had in your life. And you are stuck with this monster bet, at an average price of 4.5, on a horse that is now on offer at 6.0.

But not Turtleshead. Turtleshead knew it would drift all the way to 6.0. Not 4.0. Not 5.0. But precisely 6.0. So he knew exactly when to top up.

As someone who makes books, I absolutely wd _not_ advise anyone to keep adding to their position on a drifter. If you want to be w/ the horse, try to catch the top of its drift, even for more money than you want to back it for, and trade off on the way down. But don't be afraid of reversing position entirely and having it as a loser until the price finds a level.

screaming, bf is an innovation that allows--or rather forces--you to use all of yr knowledge in trying to turn a profit. If I asked you what you wd infer from a price movement on a Maurice Barnes or Neil King horse, you wd be able to give an answer. But not all of your bot-player opponents are similarly informed. Instead of having one tissue you are sticking to in all events in one-shot betting, you have to be flexible and do yr utmost not to leak to skulduggery.

I couldn't argue with any of that analysis, askari1. But what you are describing is ultimately becoming a trader.

Form analysis and knowledge or "feel" for the sport are no more than aids for buying and selling ticks on the market.

When I operated on course I knew every bookie. I knew how they operated, who was putting up money for them, whether they were basically punters who thought it would be easier on the other side, or fixers with inside info. I knew which bookies fancied themselves as paddock experts and which ones really were paddock experts.

I knew which bookies were putting on for jockeys and which were acting as commission agents for high rollers. I even knew the rarest ones - the few actually balancing prices to make a book.

Basically I nearly always got in at the best price and when I didn't, I knew when it was safe to top up.

I'm bug gered if I can do that from staring at numbers on a screen. In fact I know I can't - my Betfair p & l tells me that.

screaming from beneaththewaves Joined: 30 Jan

It's one of the great problems of gambling long-term and expecting/needing to make a long-term profit: how can you tell whether you are just enduring another long, bad losing run or you are in fact gone at the game?



Rare I post or read these forums nowadays as its so full of dross, but this thread just caught my eye. Im currently thinking like the above just now.......I have had losing runs before and considered it an occupational hazard, but Im beginning to think now if I have actually run out of steam......

you should really know why you're losing - it's a golden rule of gambling imo . I am on a losing run at the moment ..part of the reason was the lower volume of matched bets, there was strong competition for a while in the area i roam and thirdly i have  also been unlucky on the pattern of results.

Know why you are losing ,its crucial

Are you coming close to winning larger than normal amounts from time to time ?

Coachbuster, I think it depends on your specialist sport too and your way of doing things within that.

If they're talking about horses, then I can imagine that it would be difficult to know what's causing losing spells and how long it will go on, but I'm biased against horse racing as that's where I started out and failed, god only knows how punters can make a living out of that but good luck to them.

Football's a different kettle of fish, IMO it's far easier to see what's going on and monitor and adapt if necessary.

Trev,you are quite right , football is my area on here ...racing sounds a total random nightmare

screaming, when you were winning before you were doing so from having specialised info (about these books...)

My sense is that with a large enough bank, time, patience, computing power, imagination and knowledge of horses one can win on them--but not really without becoming a trader as you describe, or at least someone devoting considerable amounts of time to managing liabilities rather than just making a tissue.

But I equally feel that the people making bigger money from the horses are statistical/computing types w/ fast market access and a winning bot. It's become more soulless and less about the sport itself.

I find it sad and if I could bet into a 10am or 12pm tote to a guaranteed takeout at odds within say 5% of best bookie price, I wd do so and damn the cheese-paring making markets.

[i]Coachbuster     05 Apr 11 23:34 
Trev,you are quite right , football is my area on here ...racing sounds a total random nightmare[/i
]


Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Champions League
Home Team    Score    Away Team    Time
Inter Milan    2-5    Schalke 04    FT
(HT 2-2)
Stankovic 1
Milito 33
Matip 17
Goncalves Edu 40
Raul 53
Andrea Ranocchia (og) 58
Goncalves Edu 75

The great benefit of (most) football is that the matches *are* random.  The problem with horses it that races are not.

The great benefit of (most) football is that the matches *are* random.  The problem with horses it that races are not.

You mean insider info? Being random or not shouldnt really matter only if prices dont reflect what true chances are.

This is where us horse bettors have it in the neck (that is, non-insider tissue makers).

If you're betting 2 quid, whether the market is corrupt or not is meaningless to you. If you're betting 50 quid into an illiquid morning market, the effect of insider info. on the markets counts for something.

OK, you learn how to avoid the worst of the corruption, but you don't have any counterparties.

i take that back after the last few games on here ...football is the most random thing ever ...if it was a fruit machine i'd say it was fixed 

Well football is random with the exception of some games, especially this time of year, in .. shall we say 2 countries known for their pizza, and their salads with olives and feta cheese. Which I like now I think about it, not had one for a while, hungry now!

but those draws traded well below evens pre match. Its what makes footy efficient.

Think they are saying with horses that non insiders cant spot the dodgy horses so easily.

Brendan, it's that:

1) it's harder to distinguish between an innocent information cascade (meaning you shd have more on) and a not off drifter;
2) because everybody knows that the markets are plagued w/ inside info. no one wants to play or show their hand early.

It wd be a good idea in my view if no amounts were shown matched until the total on a given runner exceeded a certain threshold.

Your story sounds fascinating screaming from beneaththewaves. You should write a book on it!