Gamstop and the Single Customer View trial to start in March

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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!

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!

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.

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!

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

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

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

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.

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.