Gamstop and the Single Customer View trial to start in March

I did not read it as "amalgamating every bookies data on an individual"

I read it as:

- you create an account on Gamstop and say you don't want to gamble
- that information is pushed from Gamstop to all signed-up bookies to say "self-exclude any account which matches these details"
- any attempt to register a new account with a bookie who is signed up for the scheme will ask Gamstop if they have a self-exclusion record matching the new customer details they have and if so fail to create the new account

I haven't seen anything to suggest it will be doing anything around "large stakes, numerous deposits over short periods, net deposits, losses, payday players" - but happy to read any references to anything like that you have seen?

Im happy to be proved wrong but I dont read it in any way as a self exclusion but a completely different objective to what their main remit is.

The Single Customer View project was assigned by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) to BGC members to develop new technical safeguards to protect those most at risk of gambling harms.

The trial’s aim is to identify those identified at risk of harm to ensure they are protected across all regulated companies.

The scheme will prevent customers who have exhibited signs of severe problem gambling, or as being at a high risk, from moving between operators without appropriate interventions being undertaken.

Last October, the project was granted its ‘phase-1’ evaluation by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that approved the Single Customer View ‘Sandbox Review’ as GDPR compliant. 

Taking on complex data protection procedures, the BGC warned that for “some customers this may mean additional safeguards, whereas for others they may be prevented from betting entirely with other operators.”

Gamstop chosen by Betting and Gaming Council to run single customer view trial

By Bill Barber, Industry editor

UPDATED 11:33AM, FEB 2 2022
 
The Betting and Gaming Council has revealed that online self-exclusion body Gamstop is to run a trial of the single customer view (SCV), a project designed to reduce gambling harm which has raised concerns among some observers.

The idea of the SCV is to prevent customers who have exhibited signs of severe problem gambling, or as being at a high risk, from simply moving to another operator without an intervention.

In October, the SCV moved a step nearer when the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) advised the Gambling Commission that such a system could work under data protection law. That prompted gambling minister Chris Philp to tell the gambling industry that "operators must now come together to quickly deliver a meaningful solution".

However, the Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF) has said it continues to have concerns about how personal information will be used and whether there will be an appeals process. There have also been concerns that operators would use data to close down or restrict winning punters and about the industry itself developing the system.

The BGC has claimed its approach would not infringe on the personal data of the overwhelming majority of people and would not create what would amount to a national register of punters.

Members of the BGC have invested more than a million pounds in the system, which it said would be ready to test by the end of March. The council also claimed the trial scheme would be governed by a strict code of conduct and controls around how operators should engage with customers and how information would be used.

BGC executive director for standards and innovation Wes Himes said: "I am delighted with the commitment from BGC members and the significant financial investment they are undertaking to get on with delivering this scheme quickly.

"While many companies put forward proposals for this system, it was clear that Gamstop stood out from the rest. They are uniquely placed as they currently operate the online gambling self-exclusion scheme which has helped more than 250,000 people over the last five years.

"We are committed to ensuring the trial scheme which focuses on those most at risk is proportionate and effective. We are getting on with the work of change and once again, demonstrating that despite the challenges and complexities, when it comes to safer gambling, technology is our friend."


HBF Chairman Colin Hord has concerns over how SCV will be implemented.
HBF Chairman Colin Hord has concerns over how SCV will be implemented.
David Carr
HBF chairman Colin Hord said the body was "fully supportive" of measures to reduce levels of gambling harm.

He added: "It appears that the proposed trial single customer view will be aimed at those who are most at risk and will not include those who bet within their means and show no harmful impacts."

However, Hord said there were still concerns over the proposals. A report published last week claimed the personal data of gambling operators' customers was already being widely shared with third parties.

He added: "The HBF continues to be concerned about how gambling operators make use of players' personal information and the latest study, Digital Profiling in the Online' Gambling Industry, highlights how widely players' information is shared.

"We are seeking assurances on how the data within SCV will be shared, its accuracy and longevity. We also wish to see some form of appeal process being introduced so that a player who has inadvertently been included can have their details removed."

a realistic way to help problem gamblers who repeatedly deposit...

Is to ask what amount they are prepared to lose each Month.



And then cap it at that.

Sure multiple accounts will circumnavigate the cap, but it's a good start.



most problem gamblers have a short term vision and will pick a figure closer to their
dreams than their nightmares.


Most professional gamblers who require a sizeable figure will be able to demonstrate
they are able to absorb such a loss thru the KYC process

The aim of the trial is to identify individuals at risk of harm and put provisions in place to ensure they are protected by all regulated operators.

Under the system, data of customers’ play across different operators may be shared, meaning customers who have exhibited signs of gambling problems should be unable to move to a different operator without an intervention being put in place, and spending spread across many operators can be recognised more quickly.

This will come in a number of forms, including safeguards and bans for at-risk customers who wish to play with other operators.

Im sure I also read the Minister in charge has mentioned they need an holistic approach to peoples gambling habits rather than just what an individual firm holds.
There are better reports out there but they basically describe a list of people who show certain traits being either recommended to be shut down or watched and limited.
I did see this SCV with holistic approach of data sharing and soft deposit cap being touted as what we are likely to see in the White Paper but that obviously is journalist talk I imagaine

What longbridge says would make good sense imo - sadly (like you tt) I don't interpret it that way and think it has potential to be much more sinister than that - the trouble is, getting the facts is very difficult when the racing post is the only "trade" paper - it's like trying to get your news from the daily star! 

my apologies - I was thinking of Gamstop's existing business rather than the SCV trial.

No apology necessary - longbridge - after all, you were only offering a (correct) interpretation on what you had seen earlier - and this new Trial was only announced yesterday lunchtime.

As onlooker said no need for an apology. Just happy to see what thoughts were on the matter, the more the better so I can try and get a better understanding of it all.
I think this is such an easy way to give them an opportunity to gain affordability checks and set lower deposit limits on accounts that dont necessarily warrant it.
Will they use recent or more historic data, another concern I have is they also seem to keep mentioning about people with multiple accounts like theyre gambling junkies.
Loads of reasons for numerous accounts, shopping around for best price, have been restricted elsewhere for winning etc, I would find it strange if people didnt have multiple accounts in this day and age

Most professional gamblers who require a sizeable figure will be able to demonstrate
they are able to absorb such a loss thru the KYC process

^^
How can they? If they#re pros, they don't have any income by definition.

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2022/02/andrew-bridgen-there-are-b...

Andrew Bridgen is MP for North West Leicestershire.

Over previous months, my concerns have been well documented about the case for, and effectiveness of, the ‘single customer view’ (SCV) and affordability checks which have been mooted in the forthcoming Gambling White Paper.

Whilst I believe in the liberty of people to spend their own money as they see fit without Government intrusion, it is becoming increasingly obvious that safeguards are being brought in, with an SCV trial and Gamstop running the pilot.

However, to quote Sir Humphrey, ‘if we are going to do this damn silly thing, lets not do it in this damn silly way’.

There is a far better solution, which achieves the objectives of SCV but offers a greater protection for all punters who get caught up in bookmaker red tape which is susceptible to abuse by those not wanting to pay out on winning accounts.

Instead of SCV, we should instead be implementing a single customer wallet, which would work in the same way as a Paypal, Skrill, or the Neteller wallet. This would have a standard deposit amount set per month and could be decreased on request or increased with a one time proof of income or wealth.

There would be significant advantages and efficiencies for legitimate bookmakers and punters alike.

Currently bookmakers are employing significant resources in checking age and identity and complying with anti-money laundering regulations. An independent wallet would eliminate the need for every different bookmaker to undertake these checks, as deposits would come from the single verified source.

This would give greater confidence to punters who are all too frequently caught up in ping pong exchanges with bookmakers trying to prove their identity and being subject to invasive checks into their financial status.

The obvious efficiencies would more than cover the cost of operating an independently-managed single customer wallet. It would also be far easier to highlight gambling harm, as that could be measured by the amounts leaving the wallet.

It would also be able to take account of lifetime winnings and provide a more rounded picture, so successful punters do not get caught up in checks if they lose a large amount to one particular company, as well as allowing the opportunity to distinguish between monies being deposited into the more skilled sports betting and the unskilled, random online casinos and slots.

So far, te noises we hear out of the Gambling Review currently are predominantly from bookmakers and gambling harm charities or organisations. There has been precious little from the average punter who is subject to numerous checks and restrictions in their attempts to get a fair bet laid and get paid by a bookmaker (without having to needlessly lay out their financial affairs).

Bookmakers are right to highlight the dangers posed by the new legislation with regards to the black market. But whilst making this argument, they must also accept that the restrictions imposed on thousands of punters by bookmakers is also a significant factor in empowering the black market. This is something an effective Gambling Commission should have been looking into and preventing – however, the ability of that organisation to protect those who like to gamble is very much open to question.

I will be asking to meet the Minister and the Gambling Commission to discuss this proposal and hope that this will be seen as an effective compromise to protect all punters whilst both eliminating bureaucracy for bookmakers and the potential to abuse legislation to avoid pay-outs. In exchange, if the bookmakers are serious about tackling the black market, these endless restrictions on the accounts of those who show the slightest potential of winning must cease.

This seems a more Conservative solution to me.

Honestly they should listen to this guy. This seems a really workable solution that's fair for all. But i doubt they will and they will push to the Black mkt all the addicts, and then claim its a success  (because they cant see it )

It's a simple predicament to solve; just ban all forms of bookie advertising ie on media (esp at night) and shop; no promotion or facilitation of any kind whatsoever eg giving free bets. And, any bookie found contravening these measures will be banned from operating and fined a percentage of their turnover. The onus must be on the bookie (the instigator/benefactor), not punter.

There's only one nut ie bookies. Come down hard on them, not punters!

Bookmakers are right to highlight the dangers posed by the new legislation with regards to the black market. But whilst making this argument, they must also accept that the restrictions imposed on thousands of punters by bookmakers is also a significant factor in empowering the black market. This is something an effective Gambling Commission should have been looking into and preventing – however, the ability of that organisation to protect those who like to gamble is very much open to question.

Just made exactly this point on another thread - the "black market" is already vibrant because for more than 20 years "bookmakers" have been closing/restricting accounts. The industry has transitioned from bookmaker to on-line slot/casino factory and in doing so it has created the very blackmarket that it is now pretending to be worried about!

I'm a recreational punter, but I just might venture into the blackmarket for a bet out of sheer annoyance of the online and high street bookies for their incessant and subliminal adverts (masquerading at advice) at night on Freeview some of which are fronted by ITV and pay-per-view Racing Channels presenters.

The bookies have brought this "scrutinisation" onto themselves for being arrogant and without due care of others affected by their actions. A radical amendment to their license to operate as bookies must be implemented to reflect the digital and technological present period - anything less is ineffective and bunkum!

The area at the moment is going through a period of people self excluding from the shops like i have NEVER seen before to be honest they are going through the roof.
regards
Ronnie.

This is dangerous.

How it works is any Operator who decides you display a "sign of problem gambling" can choose to flag you to GamProtect. This will prevent you from any online gambling because GamProtect then share this flag with all other Operators who are obliged to close your account. The flag lasts for a period of 42 years although you can apply to have it removed after 5 years. The only appeals process is to go back to the Operator who originally placed the flag on your file and convince them to remove it. There is no independent adjudicator so if an Operator, or even a specific individual, takes spite on you they can effectively block you from all gambling accounts and from all their competitors.

As I said gambling is finished if you let them carry on

Theyre banning it through the backdoor and through the pathetic lie (justification) of “protecting”

This is literally the matrix in mad max mode, its like a bizarre dream you take a few hours to truly shake off, only its not being shaken off.

Think of all those “messages” you receive in regards to safer gambling. only now you can be flagged up and straight up banned from gambling despite not having a problem... its absolutely mental they continue to tip toe towards all this.

A thread here where Geoff Banks gives his thoughts on this

https://twitter.com/geoffbanksbet/status/1629580307644002305

Geoff Banks
@geoffbanksbet
If THEY identify you as vulnerable they will share that with 'Gamprotect' and you will be banned from any operator signed up to this!

https://twitter.com/geoffbanksbet/status/1629580856946749442

Yes. Basically theyve got gambling binned through the back door

Utterly mind boggling theyve managed to get that anywhere near the finish line

Its also getting to me how people who dont gamble want to ban it.... Im having to hold my rage in thinking about it

A friend who has been a losing customer of Betfair (no other accounts) from when it was the original Flutterhad a self imposed credit deposit limit of £1500.This month a budget limit of £100 was imposed. Refusing to 'dis'cuss' his personal business with a betting site he says he has now been placed on 'suicide watch' as he calls it or SCV.

He does have a poor credit history because of a dispute with a CC company over a stolen credit card, but that aside, he is not asking for any credit. So despite being 'happy' being a losing customer he hasn't killed himself yet. Not playing their 'games' he says he'll stick to the £100 limit per month and sod them. He has no interest in opening accounts with all and sundry and if the urge is too much he'll join a non Gamcare site.

Betfair have always said less than 10% of punters on their site are winners which means there's a lot of losers out there. will they all get the same treament of my friend, or will they offer all those people their money back as they must have been taken advantage of.

Feb 3, 2022 -- 4:39PM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:

Most professional gamblers who require a sizeable figure will be able to demonstratethey are able to absorb such a loss thru the KYC process

No bookmaker wants 'professional gamblers'.

They want millions of £10 punters that have proved they can afford to lose what they are betting and are losers.

This is IESNARE 2.0 only this time it appears the ICO are ok with it.

If one company identifies someone as a loser, arber, matched bettor, bonus hunter, value bettor or whatever they should not be allowed to share that private information with other companies under GDPR.

errytay your 13.57 post resonates wiv me in a similar way in that BetVictor (whether you believe it or not) closed my account citing the fact that due to my poor health and the medications im on to keep me going including chemo i was classed as a vulnerable person due to the medications i was taking might lead to me not taking a balanced view towards my decision making when betting

It was fairly obvious from the outset when they first froze the account that they were after some sort of brownie points from someone - who'm i dont know - but they went down the route of asking for every document under the sun in order for me to carry on which i happily supplied to them .

Once that little ruse didnt work they reopened the account but asked that i contacted the "safer gambling team" which i did the very next day and i spent the best part of 30 mins arguing to and fro wiv this guy who was spouting all sorts of rubbish (now bare in mind this account was nearly 3yrs old and the deposits into it were a massive £550 give or take with more taken out as withdrawals .

It was clear- to me anyway- that my account had gone under the radar cos all i eva used account for was to spend £25 a week to get their loyalty customer free £5 bet which always went on antepost bets and most weeks i held onto my £25 or won a few quid - anyways on speaking to this safer gambling advisor i agreed to set up a deposit limit on account and we parted on decent terms.......ten minutes later they had closed the account and despite numerous attempts to recontact them im met with a wall of silence when attempting to do so.

The game is royally fooked lads

Feb 26, 2023 -- 7:43PM, frog1000 wrote:

Feb 3, 2022 -- 4:39PM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:Most professional gamblers who require a sizeable figure will be able to demonstratethey are able to absorb such a loss thru the KYC processNo bookmaker wants 'professional gamblers'.They want millions of £10 punters that have proved they can afford to lose what they are betting and are losers.This is IESNARE 2.0 only this time it appears the ICO are ok with it.

I agree

all i eva used account for was to spend £25 a week to get their loyalty customer free £5 bet

^^ bonus abuse will get your name on every list going

If you have a poor credit rating, you will get restricted soon. FACT

Feb 27, 2023 -- 6:12PM, Trident wrote:

If you have a poor credit rating, you will get restricted soon. FACT

This is true. Affordability is a separate piece still to come. Bookmakers will be working off affordability scores from credit agencies to set deposit limits based on your topline income/expenditure and debt.

if you've half a clue or show any semblance of not losing long-term you're getting restricted anyway, asap.

so any affordability check is only going to apply to customers their algorithms have worked out are likely to do their nuts in, calling them mugs sounds harsh.  so its maybe no bad thing.

Face it lads its done as Smirnoff alluded to above

This is their way of binning anyone who can show a profit. They want the dumb, they want you to have nothing, make nothing, earn nothing, sit in your sh!tty box walls and do as your fooking told.

The country has brought it on it self fact, you give psychos an inch they'll take the lot and thats exactly what they've done

What di they do next should be your main concern now, because it doesn't stop it goes on and on with psychos.

So how will this effect betting shops?

Have to show ID before entering?

And what about people buying lottery tickets?

All sounds very Digital ID to me.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-digital-identity-attributes-trust-framework-updated-version/uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework-alpha-version-2

Anyone deemed "non-profitable" - binned

You're then left with your target market, non-profitable punters. 

next, find out how they're going to fund their "non-profitable" journey with you. 

once you're satisfied they can afford it, rinse them for all they're worth.

to be fair the Post is having a proper pop at them on high profile pages 2 and 3 today......

Feb 27, 2023 -- 6:31PM, jamee1 wrote:

Feb 27, 2023 -- 6:12PM, Trident wrote:If you have a poor credit rating, you will get restricted soon. FACTThis is true. Affordability is a separate piece still to come. Bookmakers will be working off affordability scores from credit agencies to set deposit limits based on your topline income/expenditure and debt.

100% Ive been told this myself. Cheers

AI and algorithms in the digital world run our lives now, (and in the real world to some extent because we interact to digital)  and it's never going away. All we can do is work with the AI and algorithms.

You have had some form of computing decide something for you at some point in your life.

once you're satisfied they can afford it, rinse them for all they're worth.  Bingo!

Sorry for all the posts in a row. Im starting soon a national non "betting" day. Watch this space. Its not for people who have a problem gambling( although they can join in ) Its basically for normal punters who want to stick 2 fingers up to the big guys and how badly horse racing punters have been treated.

It will be twice a month btw.!

At the heart of any AI is a human contrived formula.

That has been taken to court in the past from memory, and I can see it happening again in the future.

The racing community quivers in fear……

smirnoff2therescue26 Feb 23 20:50Joined: 03 Jan 12 | Topic/replies: 20,599 | Blogger: smirnoff2therescue's blog
errytay your 13.57 post resonates wiv me in a similar way in that BetVictor (whether you believe it or not) closed my account citing the fact that due to my poor health and the medications im on to keep me going including chemo i was classed as a vulnerable person due to the medications i was taking might lead to me not taking a balanced view towards my decision making when bettingCrazyCrazyCrazy


How did they know about your health issues/medications?

i told them mate - had to declare i was medically retired as part of affordability check - they wanted to know the ins and outs of a f4rt cos of me drawing an income from private pensions etc etc - basically wanted to know why i had taken them relatively early.

I jumped thru all the hoops/obstacles put in my way by them and for them to then come out with the crap they did as an excuse was just quite simply laughable.

I still have a few antepost bets on this account but aint gotta scooby if they will cough up if any of the bets kop as when trying to contact them im just met with a wall of silence

I limited to pennies on most sites. I havent a clue what im doing either! Just a couple of sites I can get a few quid on.

smirnoff2therescue28 Feb 23 15:24Joined: 03 Jan 12 | Topic/replies: 20,600 | Blogger: smirnoff2therescue's blog
i told them mate - had to declare i was medically retired as part of affordability check - they wanted to know the ins and outs of a f4rt cos of me drawing an income from private pensions etc etc - basically wanted to know why i had taken them relatively early.


Outrageous! Medical info is nothing to do with them!

Gin the convo i had wiv this guy  on phone was comical wiv so many holes he fell into - 1stly affordability it worked out my average deposit during length of account averaged out at about £5.53 per week  give or take a penny or two so that excuse got kicked into touch - thats when he delved into my medical situation - again an absolute liberty on their behalf - and questioned my vulnerabilities to treatment i was/still am receiving well i nearly fell off the couch - utter boll1x he was coming out with - then when we had addressed that "issue" we moved onto him wanting to set up a deposit limit on account - again i agreed to this and it was set at £100 per week -now bare in mind this was supposedly someone from their safer gambling team and if ever i deposited wiv them it was only 25 or 30 quid .

Anyway call was ended amicably after about 30 mins or so i thought and then ten minutes later they closed the account

Of course it had nowt to do wiv the recent win i had on Argies winning the World Cup (6 free fiver bets @ 11/1 )

Complete shysters who didnt hav the boll1cks to be upfront wiv me