Could kind soul post the Bookmaker restrictions and affordability checks article

I would also appreciate it if someone could post the bruce millington piece.

                                                             thanks.

can see cases ending up in Court could be serious serious Issues for the Books

MILLINGTON

First the bookmakers built a wall, which kept out winning customers. The bookies were extremely happy with it as it boosted their profits, the affected customers far less so.

But then the bookmakers were forced to begin building another wall which pleased them far less. This one is designed to protect losing customers by imposing maximum deposit limits based on affordability checks. And now the walls are closing in, with potentially huge implications for the betting and racing industries as well as for many punters.

The situation is perfectly and concisely summed up by an experience I had recently. I am a losing punter, but I enjoy a bet, do so without jeopardising the financial security of my family, take the losers on the chin, savour the winners and hope one day I might just strike it lucky with a spectacular multiple.

Recently, however, a number of leading bookmakers have been contacting me to ask whether I can afford to bet in the volumes I do. Some have asked me to provide details of my income and my bank balance, which I refuse to disclose on the basis that unless I am buying a house there is no business in the world that needs to know my business.

A consequence of this is that three bookmakers have either limited the amount I can deposit or say they may do so at any time. So a few weeks ago I found myself unable to deposit the amount I wanted to stake, and then when I did try to place a bet with the sum I was permitted to pay into my account I found the bet referred because it exceeded the maximum allowed.

I was shortly afterwards informed the wager was accepted in full (I use the term loosely as it was not a big bet, and the same firm does sometimes, seemingly randomly, limit my bets), but I was struck by the absurdity of a situation that led to my being prevented from depositing as much as I wanted, presumably because the operator was concerned I would lose too much, only to be potentially prevented from betting the amount I wanted, presumably because the operator was concerned I would win too much.

I tweeted that summary, and a number of people responded to say they had gone through a similar thing. I cannot verify their claims, but I do know others who say they too have had both deposits and stakes limited well enough to be able to vouch for their experiences.

The bottom line is bookmakers, having elected to stop smart customers winning, are now being forced to act to stop less successful customers losing.

Why? Because the threat of government-imposed maximum deposit limits is back on the agenda, a dark cloud the industry hoped had blown over the horizon earlier this year.

The recent reshuffle, in which Chris Philp replaced John Whittingdale as gambling minister, has brought the issue back into focus with Philp said to be far likelier than his predecessor to opt for stricter measures as a consequence of the forthcoming review of the 2005 Gambling Act.

Chris Philp: indications are he is more likely to opt for stricter gambling measures than his predecessor John Whittingdale
Chris Philp: indications are he is more likely to opt for stricter gambling measures than his predecessor John Whittingdale

If Philp does impose the kind of measures spelled out so clearly by Lee Mottershead in the Racing Post last month, the upshot is bookmakers face a huge reduction in turnover, partly of their own making.

If the most profitable customers are prevented from betting and therefore losing as much as they have been, the impact on the layers’ bottom line will slump, which will have a knock-on effect for racing, the funding of which relies heavily on bookmakers winning money.

Some might say the escape route for bookmakers is to demolish the wall that keeps the winners out, but do not hold your breath on that happening. Sickening though the ‘thou shalt not win’ mantra is for those who have the know how to show a profit, there is no logical case to be made for a company that is facing this potentially costly conundrum to suddenly decide taking on shrewd punters is a viable option.

So bookmakers go on voluntarily limiting some customers’ deposits in the hope of showing they are doing enough to avoid mandatory action, and wait to see what Philp announces.

The clouds may again disperse. It could be that the minister (rightly) decides that games of chance such as slots and casino activities carry a greater level of risk than more skilled challenges that involve form study and should therefore be subject to a different set of rules.

But the anti-gambling mood that has developed so strongly in recent years means nobody could be surprised by a stringent clampdown, and if that manifests itself in some of the more deeply intrusive measures such as affordability checks the consequences will be extremely serious.

I ran a Twitter poll last week to test the appetite to accept the need for people to reveal their financial details in order to back Danny Ings to score the first goal or Lucky Boy to win the 3.15.

There were 3,953 respondents who answered the question of how they would feel about being made to provide details of their income and outgoings in order to be allowed to place bets as follows: 50 per cent said they would definitely refuse, 26 per cent said they would be unlikely to comply, 17 per cent said they would begrudgingly do it and the remaining seven per cent said they would be fine with it.

Attitudes might soften a little if the prospect of not being able to bet becomes more real, but the poll nonetheless paints a picture of strenuous objection to a concept that is seen as a huge infringement of civil liberties.

Licensed bookmakers’ and British racing’s loss could be illegal bookmakers’ gain in such circumstances. A number of people commented on the poll thread that they would “go offshore”, which would be the complete opposite to what is happening in the United States, where the legalisation of off-course betting has led to business switching from the black market providers to licensed bookmakers.

We will know which path this important story takes soon, with the review due to be published in the next few weeks. But until then there is deep unease among punters, racing professionals and bookmakers.

I would second the request for someone kind enough to copy the millington article,thanks in advance.

Bookies can't have it both ways

Someone goes to court says they let me keep depositing I could not afford my losses , how can they argue when they are literally telling people

what they can afford now ?

Thanks ItsMeSwaddle

Sums it up really, bookmakers, having elected to stop smart customers winning, are now being forced to act to stop less successful customers losing. They are the architects of their own downfall, unfortunately could take racing as we know it with them.

If you think Bruce is a voice for the punter you are wrong.

book makers open up with 200 pounds in the morning , then thay take ur bet it wins thay say come back later , hope people lose to pay u

Cloone River, I certainly do not think Bruce Millington is a voice for the punter,but some things he said in that article I did agree with, for instance, although it remains to be seen, the replacement of John Whittingdale with Chris Philip.

I suspect I am part of the 17% who would "begrudgingly do it". But I worked in the public sector, payed for by the taxpayer and I always believed that the public had a right to know how much they were paying me (certainly at my level of salary, it may be different for most public sector workers). My salary was published anonymously then. No idea if that still happens. My big concern is the security of the information provided. Having been hacked and had £ (lots) taken from BF and PP accounts (but no others), I am far from assured that any bank/financial/expenditure information I supply will be secure. If I was guaranteed that hacked/stolen £ would be refunded, I would be less concerned.

which should be covered by the bookies surely? Easy for the big firms to arrange a deal with reputable firms whereby the solicitor do as you say. Economy of scale means this would cost buttons fo0r the big firms. Loads of solicitors happy to do this. You only have to look at the adverts on the telly. Mate of mine made squillions of £ dealing with civil claims for road accidents/pavement fallers by virtue of the firm dealing with 100's of them a month. Cost would be minimal to the big bookies. Good idea imho.

Thanks Donegal,

               Yes I agree they should pay the cost,but doubt they would,after all it's not us wanting to do these checks.

It's one of many questions I would like to ask, but as said in another post I  have been waiting for a promised phone call from them for 5 days.

When speaking on live chat I would have been happier to have been given a number to ring them, but was told someone would ring me.

It would be easier to get a direct phone number to the queen than it is for this place.

Very true

you have put my point better than I did dave

Absolutely go ballistic

Can't see how bookies limiting winning accs, has lead to affordability checks taking place?

One is a business decision, the other is imposed by the government.

dave1357 -One question I would like answered is whether the banks have been asked whether they are happy with their customers giving their full financial details all deposits, withdrawals, direct debits etc to barely regulated gambling companies and whether in the event of account fraud they would view the customer as culpable.

That's a good question. If anybody is going to do gambling affordability checks I think the banks should do it (they could easily restrict outgoing payments to gambling sites). No way would I trust bookmakers/casino's to hold confidential information. They might well use it to their advantage to extract more money from punters and who knows how safely it would be kept.

The trick is to identify them BEFORE they start costing you money. Accessing a punter's bank statements, savings accounts and income tax returns is a dream come true from that point of view.