There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 231 comments are related to the topic:
Gambling losses could be capped at £100 a month to combat addiction
Gambling losses could be capped at £100 a month to combat addiction
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 231
|
By:
Here is a recent UKGC code change
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Customer-Interaction-Formal-Guidance-Remote-July-2019.pdf there is no corresponding SI or indeed for any other UKGC guidance |
|
By:
Wesdag - Pubs, bars, and restaurants will be closed across England under the new lockdown measures, announced by Boris Johnson on Saturday, October 31st.
Prohibition |
|
By:
A strange analogy.
|
|
By:
dustybin here is a link to the law re UKGC codes.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/24 They have a requirement to consult, but no SI is required Here is the section relating to gaming machines https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/236 note the beginning The Secretary of State shall make regulations defining four classes of gaming machine for the purposes of this Act (to be known as Categories A, B, C, and D). Hence the SI you linked. |
|
By:
Thank you ill read after racing
|
|
By:
Wesdag05 Nov 20 15:15Joined: 05 Aug 09 | Topic/replies: 16,090 | Blogger: Wesdag's blog
dave, as dusty has pointed out, if the gambling industry can't drive a coach & horses thru these proposals themselves, they don't deserve to survive. I agree with that to some extent. It's up to the firms themselves to fight this. Us writing in demanding the right to lose as much as we like is going to be counter-productive. Us writing in and demanding the right to try and win off the losers (i.e. what we're doing on here) would be even worse. |
|
By:
http://www.casinoguardian.co.uk/2020/02/13/ukgc-set-to-consider-possible-restrictions-on-online-games-maximum-stake-limits/
As if said above, this is old news. |
|
By:
*As I've
|
|
By:
Im not sure on reading the GC statement whether its slightly misinterpreted.
Their whole belief is that firms arent acting in accordance with making sure currently people can afford to lose what theyre gambling. Thats fine, as it stands firms contact people over larger than normal deposits or limiting them to deposit limits over a certain period, amount of time spent online without a break etc They can also ask for proof that the losses can be afforded. To me it reads that this is insufficient left in the hands of each individual company as their approaches are all over the place, some do it some dont, some ask at a certain level of deposit others at a different level etc, therefore a more streamlined approach is needed where they set the limit. On this basis the company will then need to act to gain proof that losses can be afforded etc over this limit, making all firms act in the same manner, which appears is their main gripe. I simply havent read any where yet where it would mean £100 thats your lot, how they would enforce this i dont know either, everything would have to be linked on all gambling companies |
|
By:
I could be wrong, but its not how ive read their statement
|
|
By:
The Gambling Commission is calling for views from the industry, consumers and other stakeholders on stronger requirements on online operators to identify consumers who may be at risk of gambling harm and to then interact and take action to prevent those harms.
Launched today, the consultation calls for feedback from a range of stakeholders on proposals that strengthen the expectations on gambling businesses to act on information they have about a consumer’s vulnerability and to conduct assessments of whether the customer’s gambling is affordable at thresholds set by the Commission. It is also calling for evidence on what the thresholds for these affordability checks should be and the nature of those checks. Tim Miller, executive director, said: “Whilst some operators have continued to improve their customer interaction processes, our evidence shows that many online operators are not setting thresholds for action at appropriate levels. They are not taking the appropriate action or acting quickly enough when they do identify risks of potential harm. “We are clear on the need for gambling companies to take further action and that the Commission must set firm requirements to set consistent standards. But we want to have an open discussion with the gambling industry, consumers, people with lived experience and other stakeholders, to ensure we strike the right balance between allowing consumer freedom and ensuring that there are protections in place to prevent gambling harm.” |
|
By:
screaming from beneaththewaves • November 5, 2020 2:40 PM GMT
I agree with that to some extent. It's up to the firms themselves to fight this. Us writing in demanding the right to lose as much as we like is going to be counter-productive. Us writing in and demanding the right to try and win off the losers (i.e. what we're doing on here) would be even worse. Actually, no, "they" do pay attention to consumers who contribute constructive comments. Poker **** was exempted from betting duty due to consumers pointing out that it was a commonplace way to reduce charges to players. |
|
By:
jfc r a k e b a c k
|
|
By:
surely ruin bookies and gambling sites if could lose only a ton a month wtf
|
|
By:
There is nothing in either of those statements ive posted where it doesnt imply that they want companies to work harder on implementing controls over affordability.
To me its just simply sensationalism reporting again, with a grabbing headline, that doesnt tell the whole story, major shock Think it basically tells you what it is in this bit of the statement We are also calling for evidence on what the thresholds for these affordability assessments should be, the nature of these affordability assessments and how operators are required to protect consumers following an assessment. We recognise that there is a need to strike the right balance between allowing consumer freedom and ensuring that there are protections in place to prevent gambling that would have an adverse financial and health impact on consumers. It is necessary for an operator to understand whether a customer is gambling beyond their means to understand the risk of such harms. |
|
By:
I simply havent read any where yet where it would mean £100 thats your lot, how they would enforce this i dont know either, everything would have to be linked on all gambling companies
Yes, but we can see that unless all gambling companies are linked, a punter could theoretically lose their maximum affordability limit 20 times over with 20 different companies. We can see that, and the Telegraph hack could presumably see that, hence the story. So we assume that that must be the case. But I grant you that the Gambling Commission bods probably haven't seen that. |
|
By:
You have to read the actual consultation
https://consult.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/author/remote-customer-interaction-consultation-and-call/supporting_documents/CI%20consultation%20call%20for%20evidence.pdf page 19-21 in particular. |
|
By:
This is a crucial phrase
Early limited trial data from the industry indicates that within a given month, approximately 15% of active customers lose more than £150, and 2% lose more than £1,000. So in their mind a threshold of £150 would only affect 15% of gamblers. Just to show our precarious position, I would guess that there isn't one poster ITT that hasn't lost £1000 in a month. |
|
By:
Actually, no, "they" do pay attention to consumers who contribute constructive comments.
"Dear Gambling Commission, I began propuntering thirty years ago now, and since that time must have cleared the thick end of a million quid (minus considerable expenses). I am officially retired, despite being only 59 years old, and in those thirty years I have not paid a brass farthing in income tax. This means that I would have no demonstrable income with which to bet, should you implement your proposals. You can see my dilemma, so I would urge you to drop said proposals. Thank you. Yours faithfully, Deaf Paul PS, Please don't pass this on to the Revenue. Ta." I don't think so.  |
|
By:
you are facked
 , but anyone who has a long term profit or small manageable loss online and can demonstrate it should be allowed a bit of discretion. |
|
By:
I suspect any limit would be on deposits. Applying a limit to losses would be way too difficult.
Deposits to a central fundholder from which you can feed your online accounts. Any withdrawals to the central fundholder from which you can withdraw to your own bank. Deposits limited to say £200 in any one calendar month or within any 28 day period or something similar. This is how it could be implemented without the need to know income or wealth. Obviously this only applies on line. If they want to do something for shops, limit stake in any one bet to say £5. (I know this wouldn't work but the kind of thing they might try). Just make sure you have a healthy balance in whatever accounts you use ( I really only use this) and you should be fine. |
|
By:
Think page 22 sums it up.
Theyre still after affordability checks being done, possibly credit checks etc. It still reads to me that the limit that will be set will be the cap limit prior to more stringent checks being done. Page 21, mentions they dont believe the limit to be in excess of £2k, as it would cover 98% of all gamblers. I understand as a broad initiative it probably fits with what they want to do, the majority of people who are going to struggle and fall in the cracks are pro punters and especially those who operate large sums or big price laying. I imagine the best way is on deposits rather than the figure being on a loss amount each month. Ii do know some online bookmakers have limited accounts to net deposits over a rolling month, without further proof of income etc, I see this as the way they will move forward with whatever figure they arrive at. In all honesty its not going to dramatically affect a lot, but it will or may cause a problem to those on here that do certain things, and that will have a major impact on the exchange unless Betfair are allowed to show profit from gambling winnings over a period of years means its sustainable for individuals. |
|
By:
Great minds 666 lol
|
|
By:
Interesting crosspost tt
|
|
By:
and again lol
|
|
By:
To support harm minimisation, we consider it important that operators understand whether a
customer is spending beyond their means. We would not necessarily consider it proportionate that an affordability assessment is undertaken on all customers but operators should certainly be gathering data throughout the life of the customer relationship, starting from the point of registration which should be able to assist with a consideration of whether a customer is gambling within their means. We are proposing that an affordability assessment is undertaken if certain loss thresholds are reached. Operators would then be expected to take appropriate action based on the result of the assessment, such as setting tailored deposit limits (sometimes described as a hard stop or a handbrake). We wish to obtain views through this call for evidence on what operators should do, as a minimum, to satisfy themselves that their customers are not gambling beyond their means. We are seeking views on this because we think it will be necessary to specify what operators are required to do to ensure that the assessment provides a good insight of a customer’s affordability. We anticipate that the majority of affordability assessments will be supported by the use of third party providers, to validate or supplement information collected from customers directly Thats from page 22 |
|
By:
So this shouldnt affect the 99% of forum users who record a profit every week? Lovely
I wont lie, the combination of our apparent transition into a totalitarian state, coupled with that sensationalist headline spooked me for a second. 'A minute percentage are problem gamblers so lets just shut it all down' felt like the covid lockdown reasoning  Thanks to the lads above for clearing it up.  |
|
By:
I was also concerned about the initial posts. As I have said in a couple of posts, a monthly limit made no sense. You might win £1000 in June and follow the same system in July only to be blocked when your first bet loses £100.
|
|
By:
I think JLS was being sarcastic sageform.
It is very likely that a monthly loss of more than £200 will set of a trigger. The issue then is whether longer term wins wins will invalidate that trigger and how that is applied. Also proving affordability will be an issue for some who gamble for a living - the major problem there is that gambling operators might use this as an excuse to close them down. |
|
By:
I still haven’t got around to reading it yet, but I can’t see exchanges blocking people who can show they have amassed a small fortune in gamblings, they have watched as the eco system has shed users and created an environment where liquidity is one of the factors users struggle to get matched.
I can’t see this being much more than cursory guidance where the onus will be left to the bookie, who’s very inclination will be to allow gambling where possible. The won’t be imposing onerous trading limits because a few are too stupid for their own good, not imo anyway. The larger problem is that any constraint will have a knock on effect however; there surely will be people who will have the door shut on them and that will be money the exchange then has to spend quantitively more to encourage anything resembling ‘growth’. |
|
By:
I think the "growth" ship has long since set sail, whatever happens with this. Lots of markets seem to be falling off a cliff.
I did attempt to download the free historical data from BF a couple of weeks ago but couldn't get anything usable out of it after unzipping. Would be very interesting to see someone do a Frog2-style analysis of the markets now compared to where they were a decade ago.... |
|
By:
I was going to do just that the other week, it’s not too difficult but a laborious job to do it accurately
Then I thought...what for? Betfair know it and do very little and the users feel it but can do nothing so what’s the point? |
|
By:
Fair one.
Guess part of me thinks that if it was out there in the PD, BF would find it much harder to justify PC and the fact nothing has changed in terms of allowances or what the calculation is based on for more than a decade.... You are probably right, though, in that it would achieve nothing other than confirm what we all already know. |
|
By:
Ive just read through it all, including the form to fill in and give opinions which does go into more detail regarding how the GC want or would like to see the implementation of outcomes.
They are basically looking at setting a ceiling limit for individuals, which you point out Dave. After that, they want individual companies to keep an eye on everything theyre currently doing, time spent, deposits, betting patterns etc, to establish whether there are issues. They also believe then affordability checks should be done, to see whether people can afford to be betting more than the limits. If not they expect implementation of certain procedures specifically listing setting deposit limits as an example. The upshot is tightening regulations on firms who should already be doing these things. The limit of £100 is fair enough on this basis if it covers 85% of all gamblers, they say they dont expect majority of people to break the ceiling and dont want to impose checks on people betting below reasonable figures, as it would be unnecessary. Betting patterns on here are already well established, and i would imagine Betfair might have to tighten certain areas, but they already do question deposits above the norm. Affordability checks may need to be done more stringently, but along with patterns etc theres enough to go on. The GC look to be wanting to strut their stuff after being hammered by the Group of MPs who said they werent fit for purpose. This looks to be a tightening of rules and making sure firms adhere to them, and putting a limit on general gambling at which further checks need initiating if patterns look to be showing its money an individual cant afford. Sensationalism reporting and scaremongering |
|
By:
|
|
By:
There is absolutely no mention of a grand data base that is going to watch how much is being gambled by individuals, akin to track and trace.
And certainly no limiting individuals to betting below a set limit if they can prove they can afford it, and if its proven not to be problem gambling |
|
By:
Would a better rule be that your accounts remain unaffected so long as you have net withdrawals?
|
|
By:
Every forumite would be safe if that was the case
|
|
By:
I doubt whether these people believe that net withdrawals are even possible. If they did, it would upend their whole worldview.
|
|
By:
The problem is short term losses richie, winning poker tournament players can easily go a year losing every month - any process is going to flag that and it's going to cause hassle to prove that you aren't a problem gambler.
|