Gambling losses could be capped at £100 a month to combat addiction

My point is that I can't think of anything to write on that consultation which addresses the issue the way the Gambling Commission have framed it.

They've said that losing a sum which means you miss a haircut is harmful and must be banned. How you lose it is irrelevant, whether it's through the horses or the slots or whether you get it back through arbing.

And there's no question of arguing that there's a greater personal benefit in enjoying a bet which might lose than in having a haircut. THEY have decided what's good for you, and that's an end of it.

Argue against that, if you can. I can't.

This is all old news.

MPs have long been pushing for limits to be placed on online games to bring them in line with fobts.

The UKGC are now trying to implement their concerns.

Is there a chance that firms could simply move offshore. I think Betfair still have a license for the exchange in Malta, does this make a difference at all ?
Is that license still under The Gambling Commission ?, could they and others simply not pull out of the UK and just do it from offshore as was the case initially with firms telephone betting ?
My understanding with regards to gambling adverts is that Racing was exempt simply because they rely on revenue from gambling for their business. It seemed they were targeting in play sports and gaming.

Screaming I havn't bothered reading it yet other than the bits posted.
The idea that gambling is different to any other excess that remains 'unregulated' is facile.
Theres an 80 tory majority in the commons.

Yesterday I saw a question to a yank Senator on 'why did so many vote for trump'
He answered succinctly; 'because this is a right leaning nation'

The commons also is atm.

why are you bothered ? Most of you won't need betting income for wages.  Others do.

My problem with this is as you say They have decided the amount and its based on averages.
We dont live off averages in the real world, you cant tell someone how they spend their disposable income, someone at the lower end might have £10 left each month, if they spend £100 its a major problem and an issue.
At the top end saying a company director who has several thousands of disposable income available each month can only afford to lose £100 is ridiculous.

If they are concerned about how the money is accumulated put more on banks to check how their loans are spent.
What next theyre going to make sure that we all spend responsibly, on alcohol, etc

Its disposable income, you cant lose online where checks are in place to see if you can realistically afford it, but you can go the bookies and place a cash bet in excess of £100 which could be from drug related activity or theft ?

dustybin • November 5, 2020 1:29 PM GMT
But 'they' would need an act of parliament wouldn't they

No, why on earth would you think that? The UKGC sets its licence conditions and they are consulting on this condition. I have posted the link to the consultation in another thread and above in this one.

thurnscoe thunder • November 5, 2020 1:33 PM GMT
Is there a chance that firms could simply move offshore.

They are offshore already, but they need a UKGC license to operate in the UK legally. As has been said many times there will be a massive increase in illegal gammbling.

screaming from beneaththewaves • November 5, 2020 1:24 PM GMT
Some of you aren't seeing it through the eyes of the anti-gambling lobby.

There's no difference in their eyes whether a man loses £100 on the horses and can't afford a haircut or whether he loses £100 on an online casino and can't afford a haircut.

Indeed

If the House of Commons has learnt anything from the last eight months, it's that nothing is more popular with the public than banning and regulating things.

It doesn't really matter what's being banned or regulated or whether there's any point. Just as long as the public gets the chance to purse its lips and get outraged at FLOUTERS, the public will be happy and will lend their support in the polls.

fck missed a dog race posting ITT

So dave, the govt would be happy to create a massive black market filled by unscrupulous types which will exploit the most vulnerable even more than they are now & also lose all that tax revenue as well?

T

Surely it has to be related to a person's wealth or income? £100 per month might be significant to many but for others it would be less than they spend on a meal.

i'm organising a game of penny up the wall, down the park if anyone fancies it. we'll have to get innovative now.

Because dave I would have thought widescale restriction of trade would have been beyond their remit.
Didnt the MPs have to vote on the FOBT stake restrictions?

Implementation of the £2 stake required secondary legislation.

So dave, the govt would be happy to create a massive black market filled by unscrupulous types which will exploit the most vulnerable even more than they are now & also lose all that tax revenue as well?

Have you been following the War on Drugs for the last 60-odd years? Of course they would.

Nov 5, 2020 -- 1:58PM, dustybin wrote:

Because dave I would have thought widescale restriction of trade would have been beyond their remit.Didnt the MPs have to vote on the FOBT stake restrictions?Implementation of the £2 stake required secondary legislation.

GO TO THE UKGC WEBSITE - THEY ARE DOING THIS, THE ONLY QUESTION IS THE AMOUNT.

(yes I'm shouting)

Yes, and prohibition has been shown not work.

They will know all about your income with a cashless economy controlled by a microchip in your arm and/or your smartphone. So the government will keep a precise record on all your income and spending.

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 really couldn't be more clear

Yes, and prohibition has been shown not work.

Tell that to every landlord in the UK right now.

I will read it later dave.

But that says they are consulting on proposals. That in itself doesnt say this is happening and the only determination is the amount.

In 2011 they consulted on whether hospitality and betting IR should be allowed or not.

They will know all about your income with a cashless economy controlled by a microchip in your arm and/or your smartphone. So the government will keep a precise record on all your income and spending.

bstrds told me it was flu jab.

dustybin Don't just read it - complete the consultation and point out that a low loss limit won't protect compulsives, will cause illegal gambling to increase and severely inconvenience responsible sports/horse/exchange players and poker players.

Nov 5, 2020 -- 2:07PM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:

Yes, and prohibition has been shown not work.Tell that to every landlord in the UK right now.

The draft Gaming Machine (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocation) Regulations 2018 were laid on 15 November 2018. [b]They were approved by both Houses on 18 December 2018[/b]

The will require the same.

But I shall later dave

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.

No it doesn't dusty - there is no need for an SI for UKGC code.

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

Wesdag - Pubs, bars, and restaurants will be closed across England under the new lockdown measures, announced by Boris Johnson on Saturday, October 31st.

Prohibition

A strange analogy.

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.

Thank you ill read after racing

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.

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.

*As I've

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

I could be wrong, but its not how ive read their statement

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.”

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.

jfc r a k e b a c k

surely ruin bookies and gambling sites if could lose only a ton a month wtf

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Great minds 666 lol

Interesting crosspost tt

and again lol

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

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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....

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?

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.

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

Nov 5, 2020 -- 12:39PM, shiny new shoes please wrote:

dark web exchange/bookies disappear overnight , the exit scam!Some run by drug cartels,Crypto is not stable,£100,2013 to £20k 2018 to 10k now.Blockchain works well thou.It's a scammers paradise.

False. The superior exchange would be checked for back doors before it got off the ground and would willingly be subjected to regular independent audits. You wouldn't be storing your bankroll in btc, so you would not be affected by market volatility.

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

Would a better rule be that your accounts remain unaffected so long as you have net withdrawals?

Every forumite would be safe if that was the case

I doubt whether these people believe that net withdrawals are even possible. If they did, it would upend their whole worldview.

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.

and more importantly, sfbtw, they couldn't care less about them.

Yes. And net winners aren't exactly going to have the bookmakers going in to bat for them either.

Betfair's attitude will be interesting. Net winners are the long-term bane of exchanges. It's the losers who pay the commission*, and net winners take away that source of money.

______
*£100 is matched at 2.0. The loser pays Betfair £100. Betfair give the winner £98. It's the loser from whom Betfair pocket the £2 commission. Not the winner. The winner never sees it. Hence Betfair need long-term losers. They don't want long-term winners emptying the losers' pockets instead. That's Betfair's job.

If anyone followed the saga of amaya/pstars would know that they have effectively waged a war against winning players for years - that same amaya merged with flutter (betfair) earlier this year.

Screaming that wrong.
Forget the middle man for a second. You have a bet at evens with a friend on who can jump furthest.
You bet 100 pounds each
The winner gets the losers 100 pounds

In the came of the exchange the middle man takes the 2 pounds off the winner since the agreed matched bet between 2 parties is at evens

Otherwise the trading standards would be involved since the matched bet was agreed at a price between 2 people and they didnt get what they agreed on

If, (and I don't believe it would ever happen) that law was ever passed the next logical thing would be to limit the amount spent on Food,Energy,Cars etc. so where would it stop?

Dusty: that may be the legal interpretation. But from the point of view of Betfair's profits and cashflow, the commission comes from the loser. The winner never sees that £2. He's not the one who hands it over. The loser does. Without the loser, there's no profit for Betfair.

And with a small number of consistent winners cleaning out a large number of consistent losers, Betfair eventually ends up with no one to pay that commission.

big aitch • November 6, 2020 2:26 PM GMT
If, (and I don't believe it would ever happen) that law was ever passed the next logical thing would be to limit the amount spent on Food,Energy,Cars etc. so where would it stop?

Although I agree with your sentiment, a law isn't necessary, the GC simply says that it has to be done.

Yes its the way BF say it happens, it isnt the case though.
Its another contrivance just like PC just to artificially create an argument that justifies their position

With regard winners. Without winners bf wouldnt take 40-60% of their profit. Theyd take a poxy 2% over ages because bf leverage nothing in the markets and all youd have would be loser v loser with viable wins passing between the two.
Not to mention the fact bets would go unmatched as the eco system would reduce meaning fewer and fewer people to match all differing opinions of outcomes.
Losers could take the place of winners, but they'd be 1 less person betting, Its a scenario I dont believe BF either hadnt thought of or cared about given the sort termist approach taking maximum profit incase the exchange didnt last much longer.
The effect is that 'new money' costs increasingly more to attract as more has to be spent to convince new entrants to have a go, when the rules that kill asperation are clear for all to see. Therefore the longer PC is around the more cynical the user becomes and decides not to bother.

Now i have no idea how much it costa the average player to play bingo both in bingo halls or local members clubs but the winners / those in profit are rarer than rocking horse dung and limiting members  loses and their capacity to play would surely be the end of both

A punter on 2% commission per market pays Betfair way more than a PC payer on 60% of profits on all markets.

A punter betting £10,000 a week who breaks even on his bets will pay an average of £100 a week in commission, and end up £100 down in his p&l. That's £5,200 paid in commission in a year, despite not making a penny profit.

^ While this is correct, there is a specific value from certain liquidity providers to betfair - if the markets close in on 100% that is a value advantage for losing punters compared to competitors. Unfortunately, betfair don't seem to market this USP, so you have to wonder whether they actually understand their business.

But if someone has bet 520k in a year and has paid 5.2k commission that sounds like good value to me. In the bookies tax days if you had paid tax-on you would have done 52k in tax.

^That couldn't be more irrelevant

Immaterial isnt it, since PC takes almost half of all profits of a PC payer irrespective of the amount of churn they make themselves.

PC is a captial grab at it's most efficient. Money doesn't have to swill around from loser to loser, it all gets gathered up by the % winners and betfair take it away.

As a rule, as a matter of interest, I never get communications from Betfair. I've always been left to my own devices. The days of chatting to account managers stopped many years ago.

However, I've lost in excess of 10k in the last fortnight. Out of the blue I've just received an email from Betfair concerned about my recent activity and explaining the functions available within Betfair to protect me from my own worst inclinations.

I got one of those last year - I was running super hot till the end of may - then a complete shocker for the next three months - if only they'd sent me an email in june - "you've done well, cash out and take a break"

I thought it must be a new device, given the current concerns re limits.

I cant believe I haven't done my bollox sufficiently to merit one before!!!

Nov 6, 2020 -- 1:34PM, dave1357 wrote:

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.

That can't be enforceable. You'd have to get ITM of every >£100 MTT you played

The superior exchange would be checked for back doors before it got off the ground and would willingly be subjected to regular independent audits(no way). You wouldn't be storing your bankroll in btc, so you would not be affected by market volatility.(yes you wud.unless you withdrew \cashed out every hr\day.)

I'm guessing you havnt heard of all the sites that's too taught they were secure.
100millions puff\gone. Too many to count.
Add in the exit scams.
As someone who knows this space well.
You would need to TOTALLY INSANE to trust the dark web\gambling .
anyways it's a non runner .
Go try gamble there now ,there's loads of places,,see what happens lol.

Forgot to add there's no other payment method on the dark web ,bar coins.
Hence u wud be subject to swings\on coins.
What ur suggesting is madness, and will never happen lawfully,cannot be regulated.

to understand the scale of darknet gambling, consider that police in China shut down a $1.5 billion gambling ring during the 2018 World Cup. That’s an insane amount of money, by anyone’s standards. Authorities claim this was a scam, so it’s probably a good thing that the police found it and shut it down.

How Gambling On the Dark Web Is Done
Like most financial transactions on the dark web, gambling there is done using cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, and Litecoin.

As many people on the dark web are concerned with privacy, many people also transact in privacy-coins like Monero and Verge.

The idea here is similar to many other cryptocurrency casinos – players buy the cryptocurrency at an exchange and send it to either to the wallet address of the gambling site or their own wallet address within the site, depending on how things are set up.

After the accounts have been funded, dark web gambling sites operate just like any other. Bettors can wager on slots, roulette, blackjack, sports events, and play in poker tournaments, just like they would at a regular gambling site.

Except for one problem…

Most Dark Web Gambling Sites Are Scams
Fixed Match

As the story linked to above should highlight, there are massive scams going on all over the dark web. Unfortunately, gambling scams are included, and many players have fallen victim to them. Here are some of the most common:

Ponzi Schemes – Sites use the deposits of new players to pay out older players. These sites eventually collapse when too many people try to cash out at once or when the owners decide to run with the money.

Deposit Scams – These sites don’t even bother to pay out. They bank on getting a few dozen players to make sizable deposits through incentives such as larger than life deposit match offers. Of course, the bonuses never materialize, and players find their account locked after depositing.

Fixed Games – These games are impossible to win. It’s obvious that no legit casino software provider is going to work with a darknet gambling site. You won’t find Playtech or NetEnt providing games at these sites, and any claims to the contrary are lies. If you do see these games on the darknet, they’re likely pirated and will be ****.

Fake Syndicates – Humans love easy money, and scammers know that. There are lots of fake syndicates claiming to have fixed bet tips and insider knowledge. You’ll have to pay to find out, though. It’s almost a certainty you’re going to lose money this way.

As you can see, the gambling scams on the dark web are similar to the ones on the regular internet. It’s just so much easier for scammers to get away with it on the dark web because it’s difficult to track transactions, there’s no regulated process for starting a dark web site such as a central domain registrar, and sites move from server to server to avoid detection.

These scam sites also reveal the dark side of cryptocurrencies. While it’s awesome to be able to gamble online anonymously, cryptos can be a double-edged sword in this regard.

After all, if you deposit crypto at a scam site on the dark web, you can’t exactly call the cops. They might wonder what you were doing on the dark web in the first place, and they likely won’t be able to do much to help you unless the scam is big enough to get the attention of national authorities.

Scam Insight – The Insider Tips Scam
There’s a clever trick which dark web gambling scammers often employ to gain your confidence and lure you into fake syndicates and these ‘insider tip’ scams. They’ll ask you to sign up with your e-mail address, and when 100 or so people have signed up, they’ll e-mail 50 with one result and 50 with another.

They’ll then discard the e-mail addresses which received the losing bets and divide the other 50 again. They’ll e-mail 25 with one result and 25 with another. They might even do this a third time, by which stage the dozen or so remaining addresses which have received three winning tips in a row for free and are super excited and are convinced the tipster has inside information on fixed matches.

This is when the money request comes in. To continue receiving the insider tips, you’ll have to pay 1 BTC or sometimes even more. If they get even half of those people to pay up, they’re in the money. You can just imagine how big these scams can get where they start with 1,000 or more e-mail addresses!

My Verdict On Dark Web Gambling – Curiosity Killed the Cat
Humans are curious creatures, and there’s just nothing we can do about that. In fact, that’s why so many of us are fascinated with things like the dark web. We can’t help but be interested in the ‘forbidden’ and ‘secret’ things in life.

Yet, when it comes to gambling on the deep web, my advice is the opposite of what Nike say: Just don’t do it!

The chances of you getting burned here are sky high. The darknet is jam-packed full of criminals and scammers of every persuasion. Even if a gambling site does offer real services, you’re taking unnecessary risks when there are so many legit online gambling sites on the ‘surface’ web.

If you’re trying to avoid pesky regulations, consider sites which accept players from restricted countries like the USA. If you’re trying to play from a country where gambling is outright illegal, you’re exactly the kind of person scammers want to rip off – they know you can’t report them when you were doing something illegal.

My advice is simple – do not gamble on the dark web under any circumstances
There are so many reasons not to, and I can’t think of a single reason to do so.

That’s my two cents, though. I’ve poked around on the dark web enough to know that there’s nothing good down there. It’s OK to take a look if curiosity gets the better of you (provided it’s not illegal in your country), but be extremely careful and whatever you do, don’t bite any red apples you come across no matter how shiny – because they’re likely loaded with poison.

Interesting shiny

Any dumb rules like this will create a thriving black market which will fund criminals, terrorists and people smugglers

So some report states they know what people's disposable income is. And gamblers are spending all of it, and a ' stop ' will be placed on it.
Utter, unworkable nonsense.

It's akin to walking into a pub and being told, sorry you can only afford one pint..
Or being refused a packet of cigarettes, because it's a waste of money.
How about Sky packages, the mobile phone you've got, the branded trainers ( are they necessary ) , what car are you driving, and is the house too big for your needs ?

Utter bullshit.

I once had about £40,000 coming if my team won the league so laid off on here how would that work out ?

Nov 7, 2020 -- 2:59AM, shiny new shoes please wrote:

Forgot to add there's no other payment method on the dark web ,bar coins.Hence u wud be subject to swings\on coins.What ur suggesting is madness, and will never happen lawfully,cannot be regulated.

It's meant to be unregulated, that's how you circumvent any new rules that are made. Tethers have been audited and are equally as stable as $$$.

If it got off the ground, an exit scam would be akin to killing the golden goose.

Hundreds if not thousands of not millions of geese DEAD.I
They're killed on a daily basis.lol.
Bite the SHINY apple, ull soon be poisioned.
You have been warned.

On a brighter note Bitcoin up 6k.

Leading people to this richie is akin to mugging old folk,scamming them out of there lives saving.
We take no prisoners
We give no mercy
We are wrath.

That put a stop too your ballox.