Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
A significant and telling figure of around 13,000 people have supplied evidence and submissions to the Gambling Commission as part of its consultation into affordability, which closed last week.
Submissions presented to the Gambling Commission include the assertion from one influential think tank that punters should be barely able to detect affordability checks and they should be based on data already held by gambling companies, wherever possible.
The Gambling Commission said on Wednesday that the responses were being assessed, but would not offer a timeline for any outcomes of the consultation.
A Gambling Commission spokesman said: “We have received around 13,000 responses following our consultation and call for evidence. We are now considering those and will then decide upon next steps.”
The critical and controversial issue of affordability checks has been highlighted by racing's leaders, with some estimates that the sport could lose up to £100 million per year in levy and media rights if stricter measures were brought in requiring gamblers to provide evidence, such as bank statements and pay slips, that they could afford to lose as little as £100 a month.
Last week, the BHA, Racecourse Association and Horsemen's Group expressed "deep concerns" about the impact of stringent affordability criteria on those betting online, while the infringement on individual privacy and liberty has also been at the heart of concerns.
In its submission, the Social Market Foundation (SMF) think tank reiterated its calls for a £100 monthly loss threshold for bookmakers to investigate customer spending, but stated it should not be considered a “hard limit” on spending and that the checks should work as an “invisible hand” that is restricted to remote gambling alone.
The SMF, which has previously been vocal in calling for more restrictions on gambling, and believes UK punters who fail strict affordability checks should be limited to £100 a month, argued in its submission that betting firms already held significant amounts of data on customers which can be used to prevent harm arising for problem gambling, and that using this would not be an intrusion into customer freedom.
The report said: “These checks should be a non-intrusive process, and should be based on the data already held and the customer due diligence processes already carried out by most remote operators on their customers.
“Furthermore, the £100 threshold should not be understood as a hard limit on monthly spend. These affordability checks would apply only to remote betting and gaming, not land-based gambling.
“In our report, we remained conscious of the debate about freedom in the market and the so-called ‘nanny state’. Once the threshold is crossed, we argue that enhanced customer due diligence checks should be conducted based on the data which is already held and the processes which are already carried out by individual operators.
“These checks should be as invisible and non-intrusive to the customer as possible. We envisage the £100 affordability threshold to be an ‘invisible hand’ in the remote gambling marketplace.”
Customer data should be shared with a newly created gambling ombudsman, according to the SMF, which would ultimately have oversight of the area.
Source: Racing Post
Submissions presented to the Gambling Commission include the assertion from one influential think tank that punters should be barely able to detect affordability checks and they should be based on data already held by gambling companies, wherever possible.
The Gambling Commission said on Wednesday that the responses were being assessed, but would not offer a timeline for any outcomes of the consultation.
A Gambling Commission spokesman said: “We have received around 13,000 responses following our consultation and call for evidence. We are now considering those and will then decide upon next steps.”
The critical and controversial issue of affordability checks has been highlighted by racing's leaders, with some estimates that the sport could lose up to £100 million per year in levy and media rights if stricter measures were brought in requiring gamblers to provide evidence, such as bank statements and pay slips, that they could afford to lose as little as £100 a month.
Last week, the BHA, Racecourse Association and Horsemen's Group expressed "deep concerns" about the impact of stringent affordability criteria on those betting online, while the infringement on individual privacy and liberty has also been at the heart of concerns.
In its submission, the Social Market Foundation (SMF) think tank reiterated its calls for a £100 monthly loss threshold for bookmakers to investigate customer spending, but stated it should not be considered a “hard limit” on spending and that the checks should work as an “invisible hand” that is restricted to remote gambling alone.
The SMF, which has previously been vocal in calling for more restrictions on gambling, and believes UK punters who fail strict affordability checks should be limited to £100 a month, argued in its submission that betting firms already held significant amounts of data on customers which can be used to prevent harm arising for problem gambling, and that using this would not be an intrusion into customer freedom.
The report said: “These checks should be a non-intrusive process, and should be based on the data already held and the customer due diligence processes already carried out by most remote operators on their customers.
“Furthermore, the £100 threshold should not be understood as a hard limit on monthly spend. These affordability checks would apply only to remote betting and gaming, not land-based gambling.
“In our report, we remained conscious of the debate about freedom in the market and the so-called ‘nanny state’. Once the threshold is crossed, we argue that enhanced customer due diligence checks should be conducted based on the data which is already held and the processes which are already carried out by individual operators.
“These checks should be as invisible and non-intrusive to the customer as possible. We envisage the £100 affordability threshold to be an ‘invisible hand’ in the remote gambling marketplace.”
Customer data should be shared with a newly created gambling ombudsman, according to the SMF, which would ultimately have oversight of the area.
Source: Racing Post
Show More
I don't believe it's 'scaremongering' as such, unless you want to be scared that is?
I think its worth it to get this kind of response.
All the threads etc. did their job.
All the threads etc. did their job.
It was blatant scare-mongering imo and quite a few on here seemed to fall for it hook, line and sinker. There was talk of communism, comparisons with East Germany, at one point I thought there was going to be a Forum organised march on Downing Street to defend civil liberties!
Running around like their world was about to come to an end because they believed some of the bookmaker sponsored drivel that was fed to them by the Racing Post and Sky Sports Racing. I think there are a few on here that, for the sake of their blood pressure, should just stay in bed on April 1st.
That's not to say it won't still be very interesting to see what comes of it.
Running around like their world was about to come to an end because they believed some of the bookmaker sponsored drivel that was fed to them by the Racing Post and Sky Sports Racing. I think there are a few on here that, for the sake of their blood pressure, should just stay in bed on April 1st.
That's not to say it won't still be very interesting to see what comes of it.
They (the bookmakers) certainly "did their job" punts - they managed to get a load of ordinary (horse racing) punters to argue against the perfectly reasonable (and long overdue) regulation of a completely different product i.e. on-line casinos and slots!
If you were gambling remotely, stealing money to fund the habit or seriously in debt and not being able to manage the debt that's spiralling out of control to the detriment of yourself and those around you, with no real backstops in place; you would be craving some intervention from your bank or whatever to end the misery.
If you have the wherewithal and are in control, I don't see the need for third-party intervention.
Bookmakers have failed to police problem gambling effectivley?
If you have the wherewithal and are in control, I don't see the need for third-party intervention.
Bookmakers have failed to police problem gambling effectivley?
Management: I think the hysteria on here and in the press was worth it to get this kind of response.
We cannot just sit back and let anti-gambling (ALL forms) get their way ...
I could care less about slots but with this kind of response I hope racing and exchanges will be ok...
We cannot just sit back and let anti-gambling (ALL forms) get their way ...
I could care less about slots but with this kind of response I hope racing and exchanges will be ok...
leif18 Feb 21 12:37Joined: 26 Jun 08 | Topic/replies: 4,888 | Blogger: leif's blog
Bookmakers have failed to police problem gambling effectivley?
Absolutely yes lief - in the absence of any regulation (or just self regulation) they have proactively created and targeted problem gamblers and then sucked them dry.
Bookmakers have failed to police problem gambling effectivley?
Absolutely yes lief - in the absence of any regulation (or just self regulation) they have proactively created and targeted problem gamblers and then sucked them dry.
punts - the exchanges would always have been fine! - Indeed if the other sh1te (on which Betfair currently focus all of their attention and resources) gets regulated appropriately, the exchange might even benefit from it!
Also maybe some of the army currently employed on Exchange Games, Bingo, Slots, e-sports and roulette will get redeployed into customer service or changing the forum clock!
- Just kidding - I expect they will all get made redundant!
Also maybe some of the army currently employed on Exchange Games, Bingo, Slots, e-sports and roulette will get redeployed into customer service or changing the forum clock!
- Just kidding - I expect they will all get made redundant!
You never know - it all that sh1te gets properly regulated - you might even see them steer the odd new customer towards the exchange! Heaven forbid.
Why do you keep spouting this nonsense? The GC doesn't gaf about what form of gambling a compulsive uses and the majority of responses would likely have been that sports/horse racing/poker are different from casino/slot gambling, so they will have to look at that now when they wouldn't have done so.
They probably will Dave - but not because it needs regulating (it's ALREADY regulated)! They will look at it again because the bookmakers have been (and obviously still are) prepared to gamble with their traditional business, in order to defend their (much more lucrative) new business.
Of all the arguments put up so far - I haven't seen a single one yet that is trying to defend the spunk1ng of thousands a day on slots and casinos.
They are using the defensible side of gambling (horses, etc) to defend the indefensible (slots and casinos) - and by going down that route which you, the Racing Post, etc have gone - you have helped them to jeopardise and put at risk the traditional (and relatively speaking) much safer forms of gambling. The bookmakers, Racing Post, etc have played you like a banjo!
Of all the arguments put up so far - I haven't seen a single one yet that is trying to defend the spunk1ng of thousands a day on slots and casinos.
They are using the defensible side of gambling (horses, etc) to defend the indefensible (slots and casinos) - and by going down that route which you, the Racing Post, etc have gone - you have helped them to jeopardise and put at risk the traditional (and relatively speaking) much safer forms of gambling. The bookmakers, Racing Post, etc have played you like a banjo!
dave135718 Feb 21 13:01Joined: 05 Sep 10 | Topic/replies: 16,390 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
Why do you keep spouting this nonsense? The GC doesn't gaf about what form of gambling a compulsive uses and the majority of responses would likely have been that sports/horse racing/poker are different from casino/slot gambling, so they will have to look at that now when they wouldn't have done so.
So you don't think "the bookmakers" are sitting on a VAST boat load of evidence that shows indisputably that the vast majority of problem gamblers betting medium of choice is on-line slots and casinos?
Why do you keep spouting this nonsense? The GC doesn't gaf about what form of gambling a compulsive uses and the majority of responses would likely have been that sports/horse racing/poker are different from casino/slot gambling, so they will have to look at that now when they wouldn't have done so.
So you don't think "the bookmakers" are sitting on a VAST boat load of evidence that shows indisputably that the vast majority of problem gamblers betting medium of choice is on-line slots and casinos?
My argument to them was the bookies already know who the vulnerable are, they shouldn't need these new regulations if the bookmakers and GC were doing their job morally and competently.
That would be a fair point Brian - but we already know that the bookmakers and the GC are not going their job morally and competently.
Self regulation has failed miserably - as it always does.
The bookmakers absolutely know what has caused the explosion in on-line problem gamblers - and they have used that very knowledge to proactively exploit the problem. They employ teams of scientists and psychologists ffs to ensure that their new "games" are addictive!
Self regulation has failed miserably - as it always does.
The bookmakers absolutely know what has caused the explosion in on-line problem gamblers - and they have used that very knowledge to proactively exploit the problem. They employ teams of scientists and psychologists ffs to ensure that their new "games" are addictive!
There will be plenty of research about the forms of gambling that are most likely to cause problems. Years ago it was reckoned that roulette was the most addictive. What would be interesting would be the correlation between people who regularly play casino games who also sportsbet and problem gambling, compared with non-casino players and problem gambling. If it could be shown that the incidence of problem gambling was lower with non-casino bettors, that would be a solid basis for a different approach. But as I said, they aren't going to treat non-casino players differently unless they have a clear reason for doing so. The massive response will hopefully make them look at differences between these types of gamblers.
And there isn't self regulation there is statutory regulation, the fact that it is implemented badly is another matter.
And there isn't self regulation there is statutory regulation, the fact that it is implemented badly is another matter.
Dave - are you not going to answer the question posed in my 13:18 post?
You don't think the bookmakers could have easily put "traditional" betting outside of the scope of this review, had they wanted to do so?
Obviously if they had done so:
a) It would show they have behaved despicably with regard to on-line slots and casinos.
b) They wouldn't have mugs like you still arguing their case for them - infact nobody would be arguing their case for them.
You don't think the bookmakers could have easily put "traditional" betting outside of the scope of this review, had they wanted to do so?
Obviously if they had done so:
a) It would show they have behaved despicably with regard to on-line slots and casinos.
b) They wouldn't have mugs like you still arguing their case for them - infact nobody would be arguing their case for them.
As usual you resort to abuse rather than have a debate. How the fck should I know what data bookmakers hold.
So you don't think that they know down to the pound, penny and shilling which of their on-line slot/casino games is the most addictive and has harvested the most new addicts?
Their marketing and the "free spins" is all just random - maybe they flip a coin to decide what to promote to the fresh meat
This is all irrelevant to the point. The GC wants to stop people losing more than they can afford. Unless there is evidence that problem gambling is significantly less among non-casino gamblers, they won't differentiate.
In your post 13.42 Betfair time Dave you make some great points in regards the correlation between the problem gambling in casino and sports betting. This post is the questions I want asking.
Management if you think slots and casino are the major problem in gambling you are wrong imo, especially when dealing with any compulsive punter in any form of betting
Brian’s post is spot on, however for me it’s a closed book in this regard
Management if you think slots and casino are the major problem in gambling you are wrong imo, especially when dealing with any compulsive punter in any form of betting
Brian’s post is spot on, however for me it’s a closed book in this regard
There really isn't a debate to be had - You are a horse racing punter that has been sucked in (by bookmakers) to arguing the case against the regulation of their online casinos and slots.
It's not the best analogy - but it's the equivalent of a soft drinks manufacturer getting their customers worked up enough to argue the case against regulating the sale of vodka to children. You seem to think that after they've dealt with the Vodka issue, the GC will come for your can of Fanta!
Of course the books have plenty data showing that Fanta is (relatively harmless) and vodka is the problem!
It's not the best analogy - but it's the equivalent of a soft drinks manufacturer getting their customers worked up enough to argue the case against regulating the sale of vodka to children. You seem to think that after they've dealt with the Vodka issue, the GC will come for your can of Fanta!
Of course the books have plenty data showing that Fanta is (relatively harmless) and vodka is the problem!
Harry - I'm not saying that "traditional" gambling hasn't got its share of problem gamblers - it clearly has and always has done.
But the internet has taken it to a new level and the 24/7 availability of unlimited stakes slots and casino games is responsible for the current explosion of new problem gamblers.
But the internet has taken it to a new level and the 24/7 availability of unlimited stakes slots and casino games is responsible for the current explosion of new problem gamblers.
From what I remember the GC survey made no distinction between sports betting & online casinos and slots.
So if anything, the GC sucked themselves in.
So if anything, the GC sucked themselves in.
Possibly Wesdag - but horse racing and the bookmakers, Racing Post etc, haven't done anything whatsoever to make the distinction!
They need "traditional" betting to be lumped in with the new forms of gambling in order to mount a defence because the new forms of betting (and the way they have exploited them) are indefensible.
They need "traditional" betting to be lumped in with the new forms of gambling in order to mount a defence because the new forms of betting (and the way they have exploited them) are indefensible.
The Management • February 18, 2021 1:08 PM GMT
There really isn't a debate to be had - You are a horse racing punter that has been sucked in (by bookmakers) to arguing the case against the regulation of their online casinos and slots.
I filled in the consultation months ago, before the racing post etc furore. I completed it on the basis that sports/racing/poker were different. I tried to avoid obvious traps in making that distinction.
There really isn't a debate to be had - You are a horse racing punter that has been sucked in (by bookmakers) to arguing the case against the regulation of their online casinos and slots.
I filled in the consultation months ago, before the racing post etc furore. I completed it on the basis that sports/racing/poker were different. I tried to avoid obvious traps in making that distinction.
Not sure tbh, I and quite a few others made very clear the distinction between skilled betting and casino slots etc - but to be honest even if we've helped the bookies, its more or less good news for us. Whilst I agree they might not necessarily have come for sports betting next, if this past year has taught us in anything its that if you give the gov an inch, they will take a mile, and your fanta.
Let's hope GC adopts measures necessary to prevent problem gamblers amongst the young. I hope they do not fudge the issue, but be decisive and radical. It's the only way forward. Young mobile and online slots and casino games users must be protected from bookies.
I think it'll just go offshore. Already I see on twitter there are companies accepting Bitcoin for racing so presumably slots/games etc. will be similar
You have still been used Dave - the bookmakers could have factually & evidentially made those distinctions ages ago and put all of those things out of scope.
You surely have to concede that the books know the difference! They have used you to make their case - because making that case themselves would expose their despicable behaviour.
I just find it ironic (if you are a successful punter) - they despise you, profile you, restrict you, close your accounts - but you are still doing their bidding for them.
You surely have to concede that the books know the difference! They have used you to make their case - because making that case themselves would expose their despicable behaviour.
I just find it ironic (if you are a successful punter) - they despise you, profile you, restrict you, close your accounts - but you are still doing their bidding for them.
JetLoneStar - I will have the last laugh - by giving it a damn good shake before I hand it over! 
I just find it ironic (if you are a successful punter) - they despise you, profile you, restrict you, close your accounts - but you are still doing their bidding for them.
I'm pretty sure that long term winners, certainly on p2p betting, will be targets to prove they can afford to bet. So it's a bit of a lol that you can't see that affordability is another tool to restrict.
I'm pretty sure that long term winners, certainly on p2p betting, will be targets to prove they can afford to bet. So it's a bit of a lol that you can't see that affordability is another tool to restrict.
So we have gone full circle and are back to you believing the scare-mongering - taking literally the bollix that was presented as fact - you think long-term winners and successful players will have their account frozen for the month after their first £100 trade goes a bit pear-shaped?
I suggest you read the opening post for a bit of a reality check.
I suggest you read the opening post for a bit of a reality check.
dave135718 Feb 21 13:54Joined: 05 Sep 10 | Topic/replies: 16,395 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
How the fck should I know what data bookmakers hold.
Just the fact that you don't know that the books know absolutely inside out, down to the last penny, where their easy pickings are coming from - is enough for me to move on. Sleep easy, it won't happen, or at least it won't happen to anything like the degree to which you are worrying about.
How the fck should I know what data bookmakers hold.
Just the fact that you don't know that the books know absolutely inside out, down to the last penny, where their easy pickings are coming from - is enough for me to move on. Sleep easy, it won't happen, or at least it won't happen to anything like the degree to which you are worrying about.
dave135718 Feb 21 14:48Joined: 05 Sep 10 | Topic/replies: 16,396 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
nice strawman
It's not my strawman! - it's what they printed in the (bookmaker sponsored) racing post!
nice strawman
It's not my strawman! - it's what they printed in the (bookmaker sponsored) racing post!
TM,
Maybe you should direct your fire at the GC who lumped all gambling (sports & casinos/slots) together in their consultation on affordability.
Maybe you should direct your fire at the GC who lumped all gambling (sports & casinos/slots) together in their consultation on affordability.
lets summarise the management's beliefs about bookmakers
they despise you, profile you, restrict you, close your accounts
but when given an ideal tool to do the above, any suggestion that they would use it is "scaremongering".
they despise you, profile you, restrict you, close your accounts
but when given an ideal tool to do the above, any suggestion that they would use it is "scaremongering".
Bookmakers being forced into reluctantly monitoring and restricting serial losing punters (for the protection of the punter) hardly falls into the same category as proactively monitoring and restricting winning customers (for the protection of bookies bottom line) imo
You have lost the plot.
You have lost the plot.
Speaking as a winner on here (along with all of you of course), whilst we dont agree with the practices of bookmakers / casino slots etc, it was was just self preservation. "Rather not take the chance of giving them leeway to potentially screw us over in the future"
It's not you that took that chance JLS - it's the books that took that chance.
Despite Dave not being too sure about it - I would bet my balance at 1.01 that the books have the data that differentiates between very problematic product and much less problematic products. ffs they have a very expensively assembled team of experts with the sole task of developing new products that will appeal to problem gamblers!
It's not hard to understand why they would be reluctant to produce that data!
Despite Dave not being too sure about it
- I would bet my balance at 1.01 that the books have the data that differentiates between very problematic product and much less problematic products. ffs they have a very expensively assembled team of experts with the sole task of developing new products that will appeal to problem gamblers!It's not hard to understand why they would be reluctant to produce that data!
Wesdag (and JLS) - a very simple question - but one which Dave was completely unable to answer.
As (self-proclaimed) successful players on here - do you have (or could you get) a record or a breakdown of which elements of your betting are most successful?
I suspect you can (I know that I can), so it seems pretty ignorant to think that the multi-billion pound entities that own the on-line sites, don't have that same data (in far greater detail) for absolutely every aspect of their business!
So bet356 (for example) don't have any data that would prove to the GC that their "traditional" betting mediums are (relatively speaking) far less harmful, problematic and addictive than their on-line slots and casinos.
They couldn't have submitted that data and instead they need a load of five bob (by comparison) horse racing punters to make that case for them to the GC.
You've been had over.
As (self-proclaimed) successful players on here - do you have (or could you get) a record or a breakdown of which elements of your betting are most successful?
I suspect you can (I know that I can), so it seems pretty ignorant to think that the multi-billion pound entities that own the on-line sites, don't have that same data (in far greater detail) for absolutely every aspect of their business!
So bet356 (for example) don't have any data that would prove to the GC that their "traditional" betting mediums are (relatively speaking) far less harmful, problematic and addictive than their on-line slots and casinos.
They couldn't have submitted that data and instead they need a load of five bob (by comparison) horse racing punters to make that case for them to the GC.You've been had over.
You seem not to understand the term self-preservation.
Furthermore, you seem to be labouring under the impression that all those who responded to the GC consultation didn't make the distinction between sports betting & online casinos/slots.
I admitted I dont particularly mind being used by the bookies in this case, as I believed the odds of them starting there and then moving for the exchanges were alot shorter than you believed (The comments from Carolyn Harris did little to placate my worries). No offence to the woman but from the research I did she seemed just another 'wont somebody think of the children' '1 death is too many' self righteous type, her lack of understanding of gambling in general added to my skepticism.
I cant stand the bookies and what they do, but affordability checks would without doubt hit me financially and ive got kids to feed. Fearmongering or not if this has changed the odds of it happening from 50/1 to 100/1 thats fine by me (from a selfish pov i know)
I cant stand the bookies and what they do, but affordability checks would without doubt hit me financially and ive got kids to feed. Fearmongering or not if this has changed the odds of it happening from 50/1 to 100/1 thats fine by me (from a selfish pov i know)
If Harris could have made the distinction in her interview then alot of us would be behind it, but she seemed to think all online gambling was bad and shouldnt be around - Id imagine she'd be completely shocked to know people make a living from it - actually id be surprised if she understood how an exchange worked. That alone was enough for me, if the people wanting to do these curbs cant even tell the difference between studying a race for 2 hours or going all in on black then whats the point - the firms are hardly going to do their job for them when theyre making such profits.
JLS - Mrs Slocombe (Carolyn Harris) has about about as much chance of getting her pu$$y stroked by Brad Pitt as she has of bringing down the gaming industry.
Guessing that about half of the survey responses were along the lines of "please leave my horse racing bets out of it", I expect she now thinks that problem gambling is much more deep rooted than she first suspected! They won't have received many replies from people trying to defend some form of regulation of on-line slots and casino games imo!
I was pretty confident (about 100%!) that they were just looking to regulate the (currently almost unregulated) wild west of gambling (online slots and casinos) because what you and I do is already regulated pretty well. If 13,000 people have now identified themselves as people that would have an issue if "their kind of gambling" came under review I'm not so confident any more.
Wesdag - you can dress it up as self preservation, self-interest, etc. Call it what you like you've still been had imo.
Guessing that about half of the survey responses were along the lines of "please leave my horse racing bets out of it", I expect she now thinks that problem gambling is much more deep rooted than she first suspected! They won't have received many replies from people trying to defend some form of regulation of on-line slots and casino games imo!
I was pretty confident (about 100%!) that they were just looking to regulate the (currently almost unregulated) wild west of gambling (online slots and casinos) because what you and I do is already regulated pretty well. If 13,000 people have now identified themselves as people that would have an issue if "their kind of gambling" came under review I'm not so confident any more.
Wesdag - you can dress it up as self preservation, self-interest, etc. Call it what you like you've still been had imo.
If we've "been had", means that affordability checks won't be applied to sports betting, then I think I can live with that cheers.
Thanks for your concern & try not to lose any sleep.
Hth.
Thanks for your concern & try not to lose any sleep.
Hth.
I think it was the right thing to remove the ability to place bets using a credit card and effectively borrow to gamble. To check what people earn, have in their bank account, or in their pocket (won't be an option when they get rid of cash), in order to place a bet I think is a bit big brother. Where would that stop? Would you have to provide a copy of your bank statement to the barman before you order a drink, to Ticketmaster before you book a concert, or to Tesco if you spend your money on what the government think is unhealthy food? I think it would be a slippery slope to total control myself.
In a nutshell - you have got yourself involved in a discussion that needn't have involved you - by doing so you may (I still very much doubt it), but you may just have broadened that discussion.
Left to its own devices and to run its own course - on-line slots and casinos would undoubtedly have been the focus.
Left to its own devices and to run its own course - on-line slots and casinos would undoubtedly have been the focus.
Wesdag - I'm not losing any sleep - quite the opposite - I'm trying to get people like Dave that have allowed themselves to get worked into a frenzy by the RP/bookies propaganda to calm down.
Also, you miss the point completely (in your 17:07 post). Affordability checks are ALREADY applied to your sports betting!
Also, you miss the point completely (in your 17:07 post). Affordability checks are ALREADY applied to your sports betting!
I've never understood how producing a bank statement or wage slip would serve the purpose anyway.
They'd need a complete breakdown of all your incomings and outoings, which plenty would lie about of course and then some unqualified bod at a betting company is supposed to pass judgment on it and it's somehow supposed to be linked across all online operators.
They'd need a complete breakdown of all your incomings and outoings, which plenty would lie about of course and then some unqualified bod at a betting company is supposed to pass judgment on it and it's somehow supposed to be linked across all online operators.
Affordability checks are ALREADY applied to your sports betting!
How?
How?
^^Yes, it results in restriction and closing of accounts. The bookies version!
duffy - If you can find it buried in the hyperbole - it is explained in most of the articles that have been published in the RP and/or posted on here. They already have the software and enough info on you (KYC, betting history, deposit/withdrawal history, stake size, etc) to run "affordability checks" and are theoretically already running them in background.
But good luck in establishing this fact - it is a fact - but they have well and truly buried it in absolute scare-mongering bollix in order to recruit non-problem gamblers (mostly horse and sports bettors) into defending on-line slots & casinos.
But good luck in establishing this fact - it is a fact - but they have well and truly buried it in absolute scare-mongering bollix in order to recruit non-problem gamblers (mostly horse and sports bettors) into defending on-line slots & casinos.
All those things can give them an idea, but knowing someones income and outgoings or net worth is the only way by definition they can truly know affordability and they haven't got access to that info.
Yeah, cos we all filled out the survey saying leave casinos & slots alone.
You come across as a tad presumptuous.
You come across as a tad presumptuous.
duffy18 Feb 21 17:15Joined: 28 Mar 03 | Topic/replies: 23,629 | Blogger: duffy's blog
I've never understood how producing a bank statement or wage slip would serve the purpose anyway.
duffy - you do realise that to make a withdrawal (from a newly funded account) - you already have to produce more paperwork than a Dover bound lorry driver! (personal paperwork and copies aren't acceptable).
It almost makes me sceptical of the % people on here claiming to be winners
- they can't be @rsed to complain to the GC or their MP about this existing issue (intrusion on their privacy, breach of their civil rights, etc,etc) but get so worked up about the prospect of (potentially but unlikely) having to do the same to fund a losing account! 
I've never understood how producing a bank statement or wage slip would serve the purpose anyway.
duffy - you do realise that to make a withdrawal (from a newly funded account) - you already have to produce more paperwork than a Dover bound lorry driver! (personal paperwork and copies aren't acceptable).
It almost makes me sceptical of the % people on here claiming to be winners
- they can't be @rsed to complain to the GC or their MP about this existing issue (intrusion on their privacy, breach of their civil rights, etc,etc) but get so worked up about the prospect of (potentially but unlikely) having to do the same to fund a losing account!
Wes - it's not me making the presumptions - read the threads. About 70% of the people getting worked up on here (for no reason imo) think that once they lose £100 their account will be frozen! The post implied this. Talk about presumption. The example they gave was you have 2 x £25 each-ways on the first day of the Cheltenham Festival, they lose and your out for the rest of the month! That's a presumption imo! Utter bollix.
East Germany and Communism were both mentioned!
East Germany and Communism were both mentioned!
This only seems to be targeted at financial affordability to isolate problem gamblers.
What about the Merson's of this world that are undoubted problem gamblers but have enough money to pass all checks.
How are these people, being found?
What about the Merson's of this world that are undoubted problem gamblers but have enough money to pass all checks.
How are these people, being found?
Whatever...do not fight the battle for the bookies. They are the sole cause of our predicament.
duffy - I think Merse would be the first to admit he did a bit more than he could afford! It's proportionate.
Even the best example the Racing Post could dredge up was a guy on £50k gross (probably fair to assume he takes home half that these days - after tax, N.I. Student Loan, pensions etc) - he was restricted to depositing about £7k per year with one book. His account with another book had no deposit limit whatsoever (or more likely - he hadn't reached it yet). Storm in a tea-cup - unless you are a serial loser!
Even the best example the Racing Post could dredge up was a guy on £50k gross (probably fair to assume he takes home half that these days - after tax, N.I. Student Loan, pensions etc) - he was restricted to depositing about £7k per year with one book. His account with another book had no deposit limit whatsoever (or more likely - he hadn't reached it yet). Storm in a tea-cup - unless you are a serial loser!
Well, it was a storm in a tea-cup - until 13,000 sheep got conned into highlighting other issues that in all likelihood would have been outwith the scope of the review!
Good to see you've had a look through all the responses.
No doubt you were odd one out.
No doubt you were odd one out.
Wesdag - you didn't seem to even be aware that your current betting is ALREADY subject to affordability checks.
I don't think you should be getting involved in a consultation if you have got your facts () and are basing your knowledge on what you have read in a bookmaker sponsored "article" in the racing post.
They got exactly what they wanted from you - get a load of people that don't even play slots or casino games worked up into an indignant frenzy. Then pop the link to the consultation at the end of the "article" so that a load of panic stricken horse racing bettors (that operate in an already adequately regulated environment) submit their views on the proposed regulation (of games they don't even play).
Under those circumstances - I'm very happy to be the odd man out! - how many on-line slots & casino players do you think read the bookmaker sponsored "editorial" columns of the racing post?
I don't think you should be getting involved in a consultation if you have got your facts (
) and are basing your knowledge on what you have read in a bookmaker sponsored "article" in the racing post. They got exactly what they wanted from you - get a load of people that don't even play slots or casino games worked up into an indignant frenzy. Then pop the link to the consultation at the end of the "article" so that a load of panic stricken horse racing bettors (that operate in an already adequately regulated environment) submit their views on the proposed regulation (of games they don't even play).
Under those circumstances - I'm very happy to be the odd man out! - how many on-line slots & casino players do you think read the bookmaker sponsored "editorial" columns of the racing post?
TM,
You seem to be under the assumption that "sports betting" will be ring fenced.
You seem to be under the assumption that "sports betting" will be ring fenced.
Must be a given that there are no problem gamblers betting on horses and football.!!
Sports betting may not be 'ringfenced' but it's not a real area of immediate concern.
When you see a 13% increases in remote Bingo you wonder about women getting involved in a form of gambling unavailable to them previously and a gateway to slots?
The 'nanny state' is about to poke its nose in possibly with the help of medical practitioners and financial institutions.
If you haven't got spiralling debt problems, substance abuse issues, mental issues, an inability to hold down a job or even episodes of slapping the wife around and putting the fear of god into your children, you have little to worry about?
If you spaff up your inheritance, life-savings, pension pot drawdowns, income you can't legally account for etc what are you scared of?
When you see a 13% increases in remote Bingo you wonder about women getting involved in a form of gambling unavailable to them previously and a gateway to slots?
The 'nanny state' is about to poke its nose in possibly with the help of medical practitioners and financial institutions.
If you haven't got spiralling debt problems, substance abuse issues, mental issues, an inability to hold down a job or even episodes of slapping the wife around and putting the fear of god into your children, you have little to worry about?
If you spaff up your inheritance, life-savings, pension pot drawdowns, income you can't legally account for etc what are you scared of?
duffy - "sports betting" is a very broad term - but I'm under the impression (contrary to what the Racing Post, the Bookmakers and a few on here would have you believe) that "sports betting" is already (relatively speaking) regulated and already subject to affordability checks.
I haven't (significantly) deposited on here for many years - but the last time I did (to off-set a big position) I got an e-mail (along the lines of an affordability warning). Pretty sure you would get one too if you tried to make a deposit much bigger than they are used to seeing from you!
I know for a fact (from a friend) that if I tried to deposit a vast amount in one go (on here), my account would actually be suspended. I have never tried to deposit £50k on the slots - or £2k per day for a month - but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some questions to be asked!
I haven't (significantly) deposited on here for many years - but the last time I did (to off-set a big position) I got an e-mail (along the lines of an affordability warning). Pretty sure you would get one too if you tried to make a deposit much bigger than they are used to seeing from you!
I know for a fact (from a friend) that if I tried to deposit a vast amount in one go (on here), my account would actually be suspended. I have never tried to deposit £50k on the slots - or £2k per day for a month - but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some questions to be asked!
TM,
I'm already aware that there are checks in place.
Btw, I don't read RP.
P.S. try not to be such a patronising coont.
I'm already aware that there are checks in place.
Btw, I don't read RP.
P.S. try not to be such a patronising coont.
If as TM implies they use deposits and withdrawal history to decide then we'll be alright.
crossed posts - but agree with lief.
Bingo is directly aimed at women and from what I can understand, the minute you sign up for that you will be relentlessly steered towards slots and casino games with "free gifts", "free spins" and "VIP treatment". It's a free country - but we have laws, rules and regulations.
Proactively targeting vulnerable or impressionable people with addictive games that are available 24/7 for unlimited stakes - for me that falls into the category of something I would expect to be regulated.
Bingo is directly aimed at women and from what I can understand, the minute you sign up for that you will be relentlessly steered towards slots and casino games with "free gifts", "free spins" and "VIP treatment". It's a free country - but we have laws, rules and regulations.
Proactively targeting vulnerable or impressionable people with addictive games that are available 24/7 for unlimited stakes - for me that falls into the category of something I would expect to be regulated.
Wes - sorry if you feel patronised but making a point on here is nigh on impossible when some of the people in the discussion seem to have been brainwashed. It's like trying to have a conversation with somebody from a cult at times. GL.
And well done you! (for not reading the post).
And well done you! (for not reading the post).
ffs
Properly and effectively regulated then dave!
Properly and effectively regulated then dave!
Anyone has been following this Football Index story?
Basically a Ponzi scheme dressed up as a football stock market. Somehow regulated by the Gambling Commission who clearly must not have understood the business. Anyway it's now come crashing down and people have lost fortunes. Plenty treated it as an investment and have lost huge amounts. Crazy behaviour but this is going to get serious amounts of press coverage and reflect very badly on the gambling industry.
Gambling campaigners going to be all over this and link it to other forms of betting. Not going to help anyone arguing against the need for rigorous affordability checks given there are stories of people being allowed to "invest" almost the entirety of their net worth.
Could be very bad news for racing.
Basically a Ponzi scheme dressed up as a football stock market. Somehow regulated by the Gambling Commission who clearly must not have understood the business. Anyway it's now come crashing down and people have lost fortunes. Plenty treated it as an investment and have lost huge amounts. Crazy behaviour but this is going to get serious amounts of press coverage and reflect very badly on the gambling industry.
Gambling campaigners going to be all over this and link it to other forms of betting. Not going to help anyone arguing against the need for rigorous affordability checks given there are stories of people being allowed to "invest" almost the entirety of their net worth.
Could be very bad news for racing.
Could be very bad news for racing.
Ought to be a wake up call for everyone really.
We're living in an era whereby we are being enticed into investing in abstracts.
Fungible assets, crypto bollix. seminal tweets etc etc etc.
The film 'Oliver' as an example of prudence clearly demonstrated that if you want longevity for your precious, you need to buy physical gold.
That Mcaffee guy has been exposed as a 'ramper' of crypto much like the rest of those who will make their fortunes at the expense of the bottom feeders.
Gold is 'tangible' - Junk is ' Fungible
Ought to be a wake up call for everyone really.
We're living in an era whereby we are being enticed into investing in abstracts.
Fungible assets, crypto bollix. seminal tweets etc etc etc.
The film 'Oliver' as an example of prudence clearly demonstrated that if you want longevity for your precious, you need to buy physical gold.
That Mcaffee guy has been exposed as a 'ramper' of crypto much like the rest of those who will make their fortunes at the expense of the bottom feeders.
Gold is 'tangible' - Junk is ' Fungible
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539