Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
10 May 22
20:04
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Nov 00
affordability checks could destroy racing
Andrew Black: Betfair co-founder and owner-breeder has issued dire warning
Andrew Black: Betfair co-founder and owner-breeder has issued dire warning
Edward Whitaker
1 of 1
By Stuart Riley
UPDATED 7:45PM, MAY 10 2022
Affordability checks could destroy racing and the sport must unite to resist their introduction, Betfair co-founder and owner-breeder Andrew Black has warned in a rallying cry to the industry.
Anti-gambling campaigners are calling for intrusive financial checks to be introduced on punters, potentially triggered by as little as £100 spend a month, as part of the government's ongoing review of gambling laws.
Racing has estimated the potential cost to the industry if affordability checks are introduced at £100 million per year in lost media rights and levy as punters refuse to comply with the checks or turn to black market bookmakers.
Black, who also sits on the Commission on Crime and Gambling Related Harms, sees the introduction of limits on people's ability to gamble as an existential threat to the sport he loves.
"For me, affordability checks are the single biggest story out there and the single biggest thing we have to combat as an industry is the Spanish inquisition that is coming our way," Black told the Racing Post.
"It's going to get worse. We've got to be confrontational when it comes to dealing with this because we're dealing with people who consider themselves as on a mission.
"There is a great deal of self-righteous indignation and the only aspect of gambling that some people see is problem gambling, which is a legitimate concern, but there are significant issues around personal freedoms and at the moment those arguments are coming second, which worries me.
"Until someone comes up with a better idea, as far as I'm concerned capitalism is the place to be. Seeing that come under threat you wonder how it all plays out and we've got to fight for our rights – including the right to piss away our money on irresponsible things if we want to. That for me is a fundamental human right and something I'd fight for ahead of a lot of other things. I hope others would too.
"There's a strong culture in the gambling community and that's being eroded and we need to stand up for that. If we sit here and do nothing we'll get progressively beaten up by people who don't understand the culture they're trying to erode. It's a problem and it's a battle worth fighting."
He added: "I believe in caveat emptor in all things. People have to take responsibility for their own actions and I think gambling is an absolute right."
Black, who himself has been blighted by three separate calls attempting to assess his means and place limits on his accounts, a process he labelled "patronising and annoying", sees a cultural shift as a big factor.
"It's the spirit of the times. We're wrapped up in more control, a stronger, more powerful government, and the people at the forefront aren't progressive liberals and young people, it's the old-style nanny state," he said.
Andrew Black: "Prize-money will fall dramatically because the available excess will come way down."
Andrew Black: "Prize-money will fall dramatically because the available excess will come way down."
John Grossick (racingpost.com/photos)
"Politicians who for years have wanted government to exercise more control now they feel their time has come. The pandemic has resulted in government acting in a far more authoritarian fashion, they're being allowed to do so and they have the backing of social media, so they're emboldened in that respect. It's a political shift and one that's very unwelcome for racing and it could be super-disruptive for the industry.
"I don't see how racing doesn't become increasingly unaffordable. The less money there is in the pot, it will start falling over. Prize-money will fall dramatically because the available excess will come way down. The entire industry is threatened at the moment and if we just sit there and watch it's not going to play out well. We need to be very active in our opposition of this as I see it."
Black believes it is not just racing that is under threat. He says the gambling industry will look very different and sustain heavy casualties as well, which in turn could be racing's death knell.
He added: "The smaller, more specialist bookmakers are saying all of their customers are going black market and they're losing them. There's nothing they can do because their hands are tied with regards to affordability and they think it's probably going to get worse.
"If you start tweaking the numbers [down] across the industry then an awful lot of businesses could become unprofitable and there could be quite a big fallout, so I'm worried as someone within horseracing because if the money starts to dry up it will happen very quickly and it could be quite a shock.
"You can't get the same money on Betfair right now, you can't have the same-sized bets that you used to. I don't bet as often as some but when I do I bet in reasonable size and I know it's quite difficult to get a decent-sized bet on these days and that's never happened before.
"My assumption is that's got to be down to affordability [checks] – I'm a little bit distanced from it all these days so I'm working on assumptions but I don't see any other obvious reason."
It all creates a problem Black believes the sport simply must react to, although he wonders if it has the ability to do so. "Racing's caught in a stasis with all these different bodies and because they don't agree it's always business as usual," he said.
"The whole industry could die from inaction because we can't get ourselves aligned enough, and we have some people out there who look at affordability and think there's some good here and some bad, so they don't want to combat it outright as they think there's something to be had in there that might suit their politics.
"But as an industry in my opinion we have to get 100 per cent behind opposing it because it goes against everything racing stands for."
Andrew Black: Betfair co-founder and owner-breeder has issued dire warning
Andrew Black: Betfair co-founder and owner-breeder has issued dire warning
Edward Whitaker
1 of 1
By Stuart Riley
UPDATED 7:45PM, MAY 10 2022
Affordability checks could destroy racing and the sport must unite to resist their introduction, Betfair co-founder and owner-breeder Andrew Black has warned in a rallying cry to the industry.
Anti-gambling campaigners are calling for intrusive financial checks to be introduced on punters, potentially triggered by as little as £100 spend a month, as part of the government's ongoing review of gambling laws.
Racing has estimated the potential cost to the industry if affordability checks are introduced at £100 million per year in lost media rights and levy as punters refuse to comply with the checks or turn to black market bookmakers.
Black, who also sits on the Commission on Crime and Gambling Related Harms, sees the introduction of limits on people's ability to gamble as an existential threat to the sport he loves.
"For me, affordability checks are the single biggest story out there and the single biggest thing we have to combat as an industry is the Spanish inquisition that is coming our way," Black told the Racing Post.
"It's going to get worse. We've got to be confrontational when it comes to dealing with this because we're dealing with people who consider themselves as on a mission.
"There is a great deal of self-righteous indignation and the only aspect of gambling that some people see is problem gambling, which is a legitimate concern, but there are significant issues around personal freedoms and at the moment those arguments are coming second, which worries me.
"Until someone comes up with a better idea, as far as I'm concerned capitalism is the place to be. Seeing that come under threat you wonder how it all plays out and we've got to fight for our rights – including the right to piss away our money on irresponsible things if we want to. That for me is a fundamental human right and something I'd fight for ahead of a lot of other things. I hope others would too.
"There's a strong culture in the gambling community and that's being eroded and we need to stand up for that. If we sit here and do nothing we'll get progressively beaten up by people who don't understand the culture they're trying to erode. It's a problem and it's a battle worth fighting."
He added: "I believe in caveat emptor in all things. People have to take responsibility for their own actions and I think gambling is an absolute right."
Black, who himself has been blighted by three separate calls attempting to assess his means and place limits on his accounts, a process he labelled "patronising and annoying", sees a cultural shift as a big factor.
"It's the spirit of the times. We're wrapped up in more control, a stronger, more powerful government, and the people at the forefront aren't progressive liberals and young people, it's the old-style nanny state," he said.
Andrew Black: "Prize-money will fall dramatically because the available excess will come way down."
Andrew Black: "Prize-money will fall dramatically because the available excess will come way down."
John Grossick (racingpost.com/photos)
"Politicians who for years have wanted government to exercise more control now they feel their time has come. The pandemic has resulted in government acting in a far more authoritarian fashion, they're being allowed to do so and they have the backing of social media, so they're emboldened in that respect. It's a political shift and one that's very unwelcome for racing and it could be super-disruptive for the industry.
"I don't see how racing doesn't become increasingly unaffordable. The less money there is in the pot, it will start falling over. Prize-money will fall dramatically because the available excess will come way down. The entire industry is threatened at the moment and if we just sit there and watch it's not going to play out well. We need to be very active in our opposition of this as I see it."
Black believes it is not just racing that is under threat. He says the gambling industry will look very different and sustain heavy casualties as well, which in turn could be racing's death knell.
He added: "The smaller, more specialist bookmakers are saying all of their customers are going black market and they're losing them. There's nothing they can do because their hands are tied with regards to affordability and they think it's probably going to get worse.
"If you start tweaking the numbers [down] across the industry then an awful lot of businesses could become unprofitable and there could be quite a big fallout, so I'm worried as someone within horseracing because if the money starts to dry up it will happen very quickly and it could be quite a shock.
"You can't get the same money on Betfair right now, you can't have the same-sized bets that you used to. I don't bet as often as some but when I do I bet in reasonable size and I know it's quite difficult to get a decent-sized bet on these days and that's never happened before.
"My assumption is that's got to be down to affordability [checks] – I'm a little bit distanced from it all these days so I'm working on assumptions but I don't see any other obvious reason."
It all creates a problem Black believes the sport simply must react to, although he wonders if it has the ability to do so. "Racing's caught in a stasis with all these different bodies and because they don't agree it's always business as usual," he said.
"The whole industry could die from inaction because we can't get ourselves aligned enough, and we have some people out there who look at affordability and think there's some good here and some bad, so they don't want to combat it outright as they think there's something to be had in there that might suit their politics.
"But as an industry in my opinion we have to get 100 per cent behind opposing it because it goes against everything racing stands for."
Show More
TM
So when those emotional types can’t define their own proposal as singling out online slots only (because they know insufficient between the different types or that their intention isn’t to do that) does that alarm you that you are backing the wrong horse?
As for regulation where it’s due…so is judging individual appropriateness on betting spend excessive compared to nothing of the sort on alcohol, or is alcohol in need of the same?
So when those emotional types can’t define their own proposal as singling out online slots only (because they know insufficient between the different types or that their intention isn’t to do that) does that alarm you that you are backing the wrong horse?
As for regulation where it’s due…so is judging individual appropriateness on betting spend excessive compared to nothing of the sort on alcohol, or is alcohol in need of the same?
I suppose they might be suspecting money laundering or other such activities but not affordability.
Because like all the other on-line "bookmakers" they "forgot" to do the necessary (required under the 2005 act) checks on all their losing punters for the last 20+ years! 
So they are desperately (and belatedly) in the midst of bungling a panic driven botched and totally unco-ordinated effort to demonstrate that they are behaving responsibly now!
So they are desperately (and belatedly) in the midst of bungling a panic driven botched and totally unco-ordinated effort to demonstrate that they are behaving responsibly now!
Clydebank
I started a thread asking for such evidence.
The two arguments are exactly a-posing ones, you can’t be deemed too successful and ‘fined’ for it and be ‘vulnerable’ at the same instance.
So what was the CEO’s response?
I started a thread asking for such evidence.
The two arguments are exactly a-posing ones, you can’t be deemed too successful and ‘fined’ for it and be ‘vulnerable’ at the same instance.
So what was the CEO’s response?
The CEO said - We "forgot" to do the necessary (required under the 2005 act) checks on all our losing slots/casino games addicts for the last 20+ years!
So you have been caught up in our desperate (and belated) bungling of a panic driven botched and totally unco-ordinated effort to demonstrate that we are behaving responsibly now!
So you have been caught up in our desperate (and belated) bungling of a panic driven botched and totally unco-ordinated effort to demonstrate that we are behaving responsibly now!
He went on to add - obviously it regrettable that we were able to get away with all of these criminal acts while the regulator has been asleep at the wheel for 20 odds years but lessons have been learnt, so we still don't need effective regulation or an effective regulator.
We are sorry you got caught in the crossfire, think of yourself as "collateral damage". If you could continue to pay your dues on Wednesday it would be much appreciated - and if you can find the time - please remember to write an indignant letter to your MP to help us save our reels and wheels (slots and casino).
just out of interest, who are these 'black market' bookmakers he refers too? where are they?
"So what was the CEO’s response?"
He didn't respond personally, rather someone did on his request. I got an apology and the account reopened the next day or the next day plus one.
Why on earth would Betfair want to do a check on a winning exchange punter?
In fairness, I did deposit a substantial sum to bet on the US election, but it wasn't substantial compared to historic profits. The phone call a year or so later was bewildering. I had won on the election betting and hadn't had any substantial bets or deposits afterwards.
He didn't respond personally, rather someone did on his request. I got an apology and the account reopened the next day or the next day plus one.
Why on earth would Betfair want to do a check on a winning exchange punter?
In fairness, I did deposit a substantial sum to bet on the US election, but it wasn't substantial compared to historic profits. The phone call a year or so later was bewildering. I had won on the election betting and hadn't had any substantial bets or deposits afterwards.
btw CB29 - I'm pretty sure what you were subjected to was a "Source of Funds" check rather than an Affordability Check - iirc lots of people (making unusually large deposits) to cash in on the weird limbo situation with that US election were subjected to them.
TM
Any chance of answering the question if it’s about case by case basis and it’s acceptable under the circumstances to apply a default calculation on gambling of gambling spend to salary/capital/equities should the same not apply to amount spent on alcohol?
Any chance of answering the question if it’s about case by case basis and it’s acceptable under the circumstances to apply a default calculation on gambling of gambling spend to salary/capital/equities should the same not apply to amount spent on alcohol?
what I should've done was repeat what I said to the CEO, that if they are concerned then they shouldn't be charging me PC, which I've paid again this month
That's exactly how I feel. They weren't concerned about my welfare when they took £1500 off me in PC around 10 years ago. They don't care now. All they care about is virtue signalling. Trying to look responsible. Pinnacle Sports (Curacao) was a much better company to deal with. None of this pretence with them . If you wanted a bet, they would take it, even if it was in the thousands. They couldn't care less how much you lost or won. I presume that as long as their books balanced there was nothing else to it. They were happy to accept arbers. It is personal choice as to whether people want to bet (or arb) with unlicensed offshore bookies. It is our money and if there is any problem getting paid on winners (and there wasn't) we certainly wouldn't go whinging to our government. UK government should concentrate on running the country instead of interfering with things that don't concern them. And while I'm at it, they should ban smart phones from Houses of Parliament, because you see loads of them scrolling through there phones while sitting on the benches, when they should be paying attention to the debates.
Here is an example of a ridiculous MP looking at her phone while pretending to be asleep:
That's exactly how I feel. They weren't concerned about my welfare when they took £1500 off me in PC around 10 years ago. They don't care now. All they care about is virtue signalling. Trying to look responsible. Pinnacle Sports (Curacao) was a much better company to deal with. None of this pretence with them . If you wanted a bet, they would take it, even if it was in the thousands. They couldn't care less how much you lost or won. I presume that as long as their books balanced there was nothing else to it. They were happy to accept arbers. It is personal choice as to whether people want to bet (or arb) with unlicensed offshore bookies. It is our money and if there is any problem getting paid on winners (and there wasn't) we certainly wouldn't go whinging to our government. UK government should concentrate on running the country instead of interfering with things that don't concern them. And while I'm at it, they should ban smart phones from Houses of Parliament, because you see loads of them scrolling through there phones while sitting on the benches, when they should be paying attention to the debates.
Here is an example of a ridiculous MP looking at her phone while pretending to be asleep:
That balloon should have been turned away at the door.
They used to have sartorial standards once, you couldnt wear hawaiian shirts and shorts etc
But f0cking purple hair and leather jackets seem fine.
They used to have sartorial standards once, you couldnt wear hawaiian shirts and shorts etc
But f0cking purple hair and leather jackets seem fine.
Well that is Caroline Harris, who is the main campaigner in the House to get AC implemented.
I know she's an utter shambles, crying over emotional issues and not being objective in the slightest.
You simply can not trust arguments from those who have no specialised knowledge.
You simply can not trust arguments from those who have no specialised knowledge.
I'm absolutely cool with AC as I've little doubt AC the introduction of AC is because of fobt ie £100 per spin reduced to only £2. Personally, £100 in total per month or per bookie is adequate for me. If I'm wrong I'll either pack up or go black market given the sum I bet is miniscule in comparison.
No amount of scaremongering or incorrect or anti-friendly punter application of AC by bookies like myself will not make me repel AC. I know without doubt the main reason for AC; why it's upon us?; why bookies are sh1t worried? But, I'll never be persuaded to bat for them, period.
No amount of scaremongering or incorrect or anti-friendly punter application of AC by bookies like myself will not make me repel AC. I know without doubt the main reason for AC; why it's upon us?; why bookies are sh1t worried? But, I'll never be persuaded to bat for them, period.
You are a 2 quid punter
While they should listen to all opinions, your is clearly vindictive and largly irrelevant
While they should listen to all opinions, your is clearly vindictive and largly irrelevant
'dustybin', I remember the tv character dustybin. And, he was very entertaining too for that period!
I'd be a £2 build-your-bet punter nevertheless, I know what I'd like to win and how much I can or prepare to lose - factors dependent. This is why I'm not the slightest pertube by AC - I can take horseracing or leave it entirely. If I feel the urge to bet but not with scumbag bookies there's always the alternative market. Why bother with the sole cause and scaremongers of AC?
Bring on AC. No problemo with me; my money, my choice.
I'd be a £2 build-your-bet punter nevertheless, I know what I'd like to win and how much I can or prepare to lose - factors dependent. This is why I'm not the slightest pertube by AC - I can take horseracing or leave it entirely. If I feel the urge to bet but not with scumbag bookies there's always the alternative market. Why bother with the sole cause and scaremongers of AC?
Bring on AC. No problemo with me; my money, my choice.
Exactly
It doesnt effect you as I said-Im alright Jack
Its a free run and kick in the balls for you
Hardly martyrdom is it?
It doesnt effect you as I said-Im alright Jack
Its a free run and kick in the balls for you
Hardly martyrdom is it?
'dustybin', you seem like someone wanting the last wood...always.
Why let scumbag bookies deny you a bet or restrict or close your account? Play them at their own game eg know what their mindset is, and stay within eg I'd spread my bets to keep below a certain figure to avoid attention; bet with each sporadically sometime even wait for promotion to arrive.
Play the long game - not every game, every day; less is more esp in horseracing. Horseracing is only a game, so try and enjoy it, with/out a bet.
Baaeed is a very good horse, but apart from Palace Pier (Gosden none-to-happy with Dettori) beat non-entities or cheapo Gp1 protagonists. Yet, Baaeed is being compared to Frankel. How ridiculous and premature is that? I think Sir Cecil would turn in his grave if he'd sense of this premature comparison.
Why let scumbag bookies deny you a bet or restrict or close your account? Play them at their own game eg know what their mindset is, and stay within eg I'd spread my bets to keep below a certain figure to avoid attention; bet with each sporadically sometime even wait for promotion to arrive.
Play the long game - not every game, every day; less is more esp in horseracing. Horseracing is only a game, so try and enjoy it, with/out a bet.
Baaeed is a very good horse, but apart from Palace Pier (Gosden none-to-happy with Dettori) beat non-entities or cheapo Gp1 protagonists. Yet, Baaeed is being compared to Frankel. How ridiculous and premature is that? I think Sir Cecil would turn in his grave if he'd sense of this premature comparison.
The more you speak the more you make my point
Your moral outlook is determinant on the fact it doesnt effect you, had it done perhaps you'd be more objective.
But this hobbyhorse for you could still come a cropper if the collective damage of over zealous judgement of this cause ends with bookies not offering a service and going to America
But you wont care much.
Your moral outlook is determinant on the fact it doesnt effect you, had it done perhaps you'd be more objective.
But this hobbyhorse for you could still come a cropper if the collective damage of over zealous judgement of this cause ends with bookies not offering a service and going to America
But you wont care much.
Any intelligent and conscientious punters of horseracing will undoubtedly understand why AC has come about, the offender and victims. And, the governing body will deal with it accordingly because the Gambling Commission has not.
Horseracing is only a game to most; fobt a major earner for the scumbag bookies. Hence, their shameful and deliberate disingenuity and scaremongering about AC. My advice is deal with AC - it's what it's. And, I've faith in the body introducing it, just little on the scumbag bookies application of it.
Horseracing is only a game to most; fobt a major earner for the scumbag bookies. Hence, their shameful and deliberate disingenuity and scaremongering about AC. My advice is deal with AC - it's what it's. And, I've faith in the body introducing it, just little on the scumbag bookies application of it.
We are going around and around ffs
Last time for you.
The premise of the regulation neither defined only online slots, not protected horseracing from its calculation on what amount of money it deems is permissable to be gambled by an individual. You have zero evidence to back up your allegations that bookies are lying and have little investment in whether they happen to be telling the truth.
You as a two bit punter dont concern me.
I await TM to answer why he deems regulation on the calculation on a person's gambling activity isnt onerous on the basis some people need protection but alcohol gets no such scrutiny
Last time for you.
The premise of the regulation neither defined only online slots, not protected horseracing from its calculation on what amount of money it deems is permissable to be gambled by an individual. You have zero evidence to back up your allegations that bookies are lying and have little investment in whether they happen to be telling the truth.
You as a two bit punter dont concern me.
I await TM to answer why he deems regulation on the calculation on a person's gambling activity isnt onerous on the basis some people need protection but alcohol gets no such scrutiny
And for the last f00king time, the politicians are not in the process to satify your personal vendetta with bookmakers who have refused bets it is not their raison d'etre...in fact as they seek a lowering on net gambling transactions to reduce the liklihood of people getting into difficulty, bookies closing accounts would actually be inline with their very motives.
Ermmm thanks
But I’m convinced you don’t have a clue
Barely a week passes where I don’t pay PC
If I have to worry about AC it will be because the exchange mechanism has collapsed.
But I’m convinced you don’t have a clue
Barely a week passes where I don’t pay PC
If I have to worry about AC it will be because the exchange mechanism has collapsed.
The exchange is already under pressure especially in horse racing markets and in running.
The squeeze from the cost of living is definitely upon us.
We've had to endure traders being forced off BF which resulted in most of the overnight and morning liquidity disappearing.
Premium Charge fallout
Credit Card betting abolished
A round of Affordability checks already
And now a further possible round of more severe checks at a level noone wants or needs given mechanisms already exist.
Put on top an industry that youngsters aren't generally bothered about, and it's not hard to see where it will all end if AC is toughened.
I've seen this site build from nothing to million pound markets every race, now the levels are back to between 150k and 300k matched most races including inrunning, and night meetings even less.
If you get with bookies I get your devil may care attitude towards AC, and your want to punish bookies and help the 0.2% reported this week of gamblers with problems.
It will however possibly kill some markets entirely on here.
I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say it would be the beginning of the end for UK only markets that don't attract international money.
An exchange only exists because nearly all of its users lose money.
The more you limit the losses the more you kill liquidity.
The squeeze from the cost of living is definitely upon us.
We've had to endure traders being forced off BF which resulted in most of the overnight and morning liquidity disappearing.
Premium Charge fallout
Credit Card betting abolished
A round of Affordability checks already
And now a further possible round of more severe checks at a level noone wants or needs given mechanisms already exist.
Put on top an industry that youngsters aren't generally bothered about, and it's not hard to see where it will all end if AC is toughened.
I've seen this site build from nothing to million pound markets every race, now the levels are back to between 150k and 300k matched most races including inrunning, and night meetings even less.
If you get with bookies I get your devil may care attitude towards AC, and your want to punish bookies and help the 0.2% reported this week of gamblers with problems.
It will however possibly kill some markets entirely on here.
I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say it would be the beginning of the end for UK only markets that don't attract international money.
An exchange only exists because nearly all of its users lose money.
The more you limit the losses the more you kill liquidity.
If this does kill the exchange I just can't see myself having to bet with bookmakers again but I suppose I'm in the minority on that one. I have obviously noticed the drop in liquidity on here and fear for its future although I doubt that the company as a whole worry about the exchange as long as their bookmaking arm remains intact. Come to that what percentage on this forum will be quite happy to continue with just bookmaker betting?
neil channing made a great point basically if you inherited a million and shown the bookie you have a million on your account statement and youlost the lot to the bookie how is that responsible gambling
I remember Betfair's first million pound matched market: High Chaparral's BC turf 2002. I had only recently joined Betfair and this seemed to be the moment when it really took off. For a while the growth seemed exponential. They were exciting times. USA racing was the new thing and we were being educated (on the racing channel) by Gordon Richards's grandson on the technicalities of US Racing. It was like doing an open university course. After a few weeks of this we were good to go. All we needed were video links to the tracks when our TV was too busy to show it. And people kept posting these with enthusiasm. The clueless and the shrewd kept throwing money at the markets. I thought it would never end. Of course it levelled off after a few years and possibly dipped a little, but not much. It just seemed that it could go on like this, on a high plateau, indefinitely. But, out of the blue came the Premium Charge, and liquidity did start to gradually decline. And then there was the Super Premium Charge, which just seemed vindictive, and the decline gathered pace.
Nowadays, there are still million pound markets on big races, but it now feels that we have now slipped below the 2002 liquidity levels. Perhaps it is just a large number of small players who are pushing these markets over the million pound barrier.
But affordability checks will hit Betfair harder than any of the bookmaking firms due to the requirement for liquidity provided by the few remaining big players who are prepared to take risks and, inevitably, have losing days which will require the depositing of much more that £100.
Nowadays, there are still million pound markets on big races, but it now feels that we have now slipped below the 2002 liquidity levels. Perhaps it is just a large number of small players who are pushing these markets over the million pound barrier.
But affordability checks will hit Betfair harder than any of the bookmaking firms due to the requirement for liquidity provided by the few remaining big players who are prepared to take risks and, inevitably, have losing days which will require the depositing of much more that £100.
But isn’t the exchange just a trading platform. So would be exempt from the checks. Like Uber they. Could argue they aren’t a bookmaker.perhaps the sports book might need to distance itself from the exchange.
But isn’t the exchange just a trading platform. So would be exempt from the checks. Like Uber they. Could argue they aren’t a bookmaker.perhaps the sports book might need to distance itself from the exchange.
I do find that some markets are hard to trade out of but they are usually on foreign racing when it is almost impossible to lay off as so few people are trading in running. I bet to small stakes and lay off about 80% of my bets in running and on UK racing that is very rarely a problem so long as you put up the lay before the start using the keep function. I doubt that affordability checks will affect the £20-30 a day turnover punter like me but I still oppose it in principle as it is treating gambling differently from other activities like binge buying of clothes, shoes or other apparently addictive spending. Who checks if an individual is a compulsive donor to charities on mobile phone lines for instance?
Recived this reply from my local Mp after sending him the generic e-mail from the ATR site.
Dear*****
Thankyou for contacting me to raise your concerns towards the review of the Gambling Act 2005.
I recognise that gambling is for many people an enjoyablepastime,but equally it can become a serious problem.While we all want a healthy gambling industry that makes an important contribution to the economy, we must also do everything we can to protect those that use it from harm. By the same token,however, i respect that the vast majority of those that do gamble do so in moderation.
Operators providing gambling facilities to costomers in Great Britain must be licensed by the Gambling Commission and comply with the conditions of their licences.In recent years, the commission has also introduced a number of license conditions specifically in relation to onlne gambling to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable people.In 2019, the Gambling Commission introduced new age and identity verification rules to ensure operators verify customers' age and identity details quickly and robustly. Furthemore, in 2020, the Government andCommission strengthened these protections further, including a ban on credit card gambling,making participation in the self-exclusion scheme GAMSTOP mandatory for online operators,as well as issuing new guidance for operators to address the potential for some customers to be at heightened risk during the covid-19 pandemic.
I am delighted that the Government recognise that it is increasingly apparent that the Gambling Act 2005 is an analogue law in a digital age. The review of this Act was launched in December 2020 with the publication of a wide-ranging Call for Evidence. This review is examining online restrictions,marketing and the powers of the Gambling Commission. Furthermore,specifically in regard to onlne gambling,protection for online gamblers like stake and spend limits, advertising and promotional offers and wether extra protections for young adults are needed are also being explored. I understand that the Government aims to publish a White Paper setting out any conclusions and consulting on next steps in the coming months.
I appreciate your concerns over the impact of the Gambling Commission's consultation,specifically in regard to affordability checks. I want to stress that the proposals are focused on more prescriptive requirements for operators to identify and intervene with customers who may be at risk of harm. This included a specific process for assessing affordability and particular consideration will be given to the spending/loss threshold at which it might be proportionate to requre operators to complete affordability checks.
I must stress that i do not wish to see any restrictions on every-day gambling put into place
throughout these measures that may damage the industry. I will be keeping a keen eye on any developments.
Yours sincerely
********** MP
Dear*****
Thankyou for contacting me to raise your concerns towards the review of the Gambling Act 2005.
I recognise that gambling is for many people an enjoyablepastime,but equally it can become a serious problem.While we all want a healthy gambling industry that makes an important contribution to the economy, we must also do everything we can to protect those that use it from harm. By the same token,however, i respect that the vast majority of those that do gamble do so in moderation.
Operators providing gambling facilities to costomers in Great Britain must be licensed by the Gambling Commission and comply with the conditions of their licences.In recent years, the commission has also introduced a number of license conditions specifically in relation to onlne gambling to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable people.In 2019, the Gambling Commission introduced new age and identity verification rules to ensure operators verify customers' age and identity details quickly and robustly. Furthemore, in 2020, the Government andCommission strengthened these protections further, including a ban on credit card gambling,making participation in the self-exclusion scheme GAMSTOP mandatory for online operators,as well as issuing new guidance for operators to address the potential for some customers to be at heightened risk during the covid-19 pandemic.
I am delighted that the Government recognise that it is increasingly apparent that the Gambling Act 2005 is an analogue law in a digital age. The review of this Act was launched in December 2020 with the publication of a wide-ranging Call for Evidence. This review is examining online restrictions,marketing and the powers of the Gambling Commission. Furthermore,specifically in regard to onlne gambling,protection for online gamblers like stake and spend limits, advertising and promotional offers and wether extra protections for young adults are needed are also being explored. I understand that the Government aims to publish a White Paper setting out any conclusions and consulting on next steps in the coming months.
I appreciate your concerns over the impact of the Gambling Commission's consultation,specifically in regard to affordability checks. I want to stress that the proposals are focused on more prescriptive requirements for operators to identify and intervene with customers who may be at risk of harm. This included a specific process for assessing affordability and particular consideration will be given to the spending/loss threshold at which it might be proportionate to requre operators to complete affordability checks.
I must stress that i do not wish to see any restrictions on every-day gambling put into place
throughout these measures that may damage the industry. I will be keeping a keen eye on any developments.
Yours sincerely
********** MP
It's a fair swap - one generic template deserves another generic template in return imo.
At least no stamps were wasted in this very productive and detailed exchange of views.
At least no stamps were wasted in this very productive and detailed exchange of views.
"btw CB29 - I'm pretty sure what you were subjected to was a "Source of Funds" check rather than an Affordability Check - iirc lots of people (making unusually large deposits) to cash in on the weird limbo situation with that US election were subjected to them."
Well it could be but in that case they only had to look at my PC statement to see where the funds had come from, which would be the strongest evidence there could be. Why I think it was AC is that they said it was to do with source of funds in any correspondence, whilst I got about 4 emails about responsible gambling over that time, and also the phone call a year later was about responsible gambling. I also was in contact through a friend with someone who suffered the same treatment and experience and his was responsible gambling related. I deposited a similar sum with Coventry Building Scociety and they didn't require anything and you would imagine that FCA rules are more stringent than gambling ones. Therefore there should be no reason
Well it could be but in that case they only had to look at my PC statement to see where the funds had come from, which would be the strongest evidence there could be. Why I think it was AC is that they said it was to do with source of funds in any correspondence, whilst I got about 4 emails about responsible gambling over that time, and also the phone call a year later was about responsible gambling. I also was in contact through a friend with someone who suffered the same treatment and experience and his was responsible gambling related. I deposited a similar sum with Coventry Building Scociety and they didn't require anything and you would imagine that FCA rules are more stringent than gambling ones. Therefore there should be no reason
CORRECTION .... Why I think it was AC is that they NEVER said it was to do with source of funds in any correspondence whilst I got about 4 emails about responsible gambling over that time, and also the phone call a year later was about responsible gambling
If they make it a loss limit as opposed to a deposit limit that would surely make punters far more disciplined, the downside being liquidity would drop through the floor. Cant see how this has a happy ending really..
I'm just reminded of my sister in law who racked up £100k worth of credit card debt (without her husband knowing) and had to sell their house
Possibly CB29 - I'm just not convinced that the pretence of bookmakers worrying about "gambling responsibly" was in full flow as far back as November 2020, certainly not to the extent that they had introduced affordability checks.
I'm pretty sure there was coverage at the time - many people getting on the wrong side of Source of Funds "bureaucracy" as a result of making much larger (than would normally be expected) BF deposits to cash in on that US election. In all fairness, it's pretty obvious they haven't got a clue what they are doing with any of these checks and that they are just making it up on the hoof in a panicky/botched attempt to make up for 20 years of not bothering!
I'm pretty sure there was coverage at the time - many people getting on the wrong side of Source of Funds "bureaucracy" as a result of making much larger (than would normally be expected) BF deposits to cash in on that US election. In all fairness, it's pretty obvious they haven't got a clue what they are doing with any of these checks and that they are just making it up on the hoof in a panicky/botched attempt to make up for 20 years of not bothering!
That was about 15 years ago now. The house which they bought right at the bottom of the market would be worth well over a £1m now. She is potless
Its not 20 years of not bothering.
When I went on higher rate PC (not long after it came in) I stepped up my churn to compensate and got a call asking if I knew what I was doing.
I said yes and they said ok.
When I went on higher rate PC (not long after it came in) I stepped up my churn to compensate and got a call asking if I knew what I was doing.
I said yes and they said ok.
Tell me dusty - for anyone looking in that isn't sure - do you pay PC at all?
Do you talk illogical nonsense?
How about this question on alcohol restriction now you not attempting to avoid it.
How about this question on alcohol restriction now you not attempting to avoid it.
Sageform, I don't think it will happen as low as £100 but if it does the impact could be immense.
You mention £20-£30 daily trading which is perfectly normal for many I would imagine.
Losing as little as £3.34 a day would get you to your £100 limit each month.
Losing on average £5 per day would leave you with 10 or 11 days free from betting online unless you decided to either submit documentation or they do some remote searches on you, whichever way they decide it should be implemented.
At this moment in time, I know everyone under 25 is limited to a max of £500pm without checks, i know people who are unrestricted, and I know some have been restricted to a quarter of their income after being checked. It generally brings someone onto £500 if they earn £2k a month.
If AC is brought in at £100 for all, that's everyone's probable limit dropping by 80%, let alone those who aren't currently restricted in anyway dropping from technically unlimited to next to nothing.
I think that would decimate the exchange.
Regarding bookmakers or exchange trading platform, Ive no idea if it makes a difference but I imagine they both hold the same bookmakers permits, I can't recall.
You mention £20-£30 daily trading which is perfectly normal for many I would imagine.
Losing as little as £3.34 a day would get you to your £100 limit each month.
Losing on average £5 per day would leave you with 10 or 11 days free from betting online unless you decided to either submit documentation or they do some remote searches on you, whichever way they decide it should be implemented.
At this moment in time, I know everyone under 25 is limited to a max of £500pm without checks, i know people who are unrestricted, and I know some have been restricted to a quarter of their income after being checked. It generally brings someone onto £500 if they earn £2k a month.
If AC is brought in at £100 for all, that's everyone's probable limit dropping by 80%, let alone those who aren't currently restricted in anyway dropping from technically unlimited to next to nothing.
I think that would decimate the exchange.
Regarding bookmakers or exchange trading platform, Ive no idea if it makes a difference but I imagine they both hold the same bookmakers permits, I can't recall.
Anyone else think they'll miss May for the release of the white paper
Its ofc a going concern, especially when all people who have an agenda just to kick bookies say its scaremongering while not providing the evidence to show its not.
dusty - why would I waste my time answering your questions, when you can't answer any of mine.
Why is everybody so obsessed with repeating this made up nonsense about £100 per month????
Where have you got that from? - the only people still peddling that are the scaremongering Racing Post/Bookmakers.
As low as £100..
The draconian £100..
The proposed £100..
The alleged £100..
If it were to be set as low as £100..
It's all bollix - the origin of it is from the industry!!!! - They did a case study to see the impact if there was a deposit limit and if it would cause devastation if it were to be set as low as £100 per month. Guess what, they wanted to pick a low number that would show devastation, and it did!
Why are people still pretending that a figure completely made up by the industry is likely to be the outcome!
Why is everybody so obsessed with repeating this made up nonsense about £100 per month????
Where have you got that from? - the only people still peddling that are the scaremongering Racing Post/Bookmakers.
As low as £100..
The draconian £100..
The proposed £100..
The alleged £100..
If it were to be set as low as £100..
It's all bollix - the origin of it is from the industry!!!! - They did a case study to see the impact if there was a deposit limit and if it would cause devastation if it were to be set as low as £100 per month. Guess what, they wanted to pick a low number that would show devastation, and it did!
Why are people still pretending that a figure completely made up by the industry is likely to be the outcome!
Carolyn Harris was on politics live earlier, god help us all, the state of her and her beliefs are not far off as warped as the madman is Russia
It's like there is going to be a review of the price of Whisky.
So the Whisky industry commissions a study to show that nobody would still buy it if it were £400 per bottle.
And then the industry gets all the Whisky drinkers to complain about the "proposed" price increase to £400 per bottle.
So the Whisky industry commissions a study to show that nobody would still buy it if it were £400 per bottle.
And then the industry gets all the Whisky drinkers to complain about the "proposed" price increase to £400 per bottle.
Until it happens weve no idea of what the proposed limit will be.
The last I read from a 'government insider' on various newspaper websites, was that it would likely be a couple of thousand which is where they do background checks currently I believe.
The last I read from a 'government insider' on various newspaper websites, was that it would likely be a couple of thousand which is where they do background checks currently I believe.
I'm pretty sure it's a made up figure but it's had the desired effect of rallying opposition.
tt - shirley not! 
All this panic and talk of communism, draconian nanny and yet for the vast majority of people nothing changes?
You have clearly stopped getting all of your "news" from the Racing Post and have been exploring some of those radical conspiracy theories in the Main Stream Media!
All this panic and talk of communism, draconian nanny and yet for the vast majority of people nothing changes?
You have clearly stopped getting all of your "news" from the Racing Post and have been exploring some of those radical conspiracy theories in the Main Stream Media!
TM says its not ideological but somehow taken on merit.
Like an existential dilemma perhaps? The saving of those at risk of harm from gambling, but totally goes missing when asked if the far greater danger of alcohol sales to salary should receive the same scrutiny.
He just strumbs his limps. Its clear as was the case with 123 that his investment in the outcome on this pariah issue isnt significant enough to be a concern for him personally so ignores the illogical nature of his argument.
Like an existential dilemma perhaps? The saving of those at risk of harm from gambling, but totally goes missing when asked if the far greater danger of alcohol sales to salary should receive the same scrutiny.
He just strumbs his limps. Its clear as was the case with 123 that his investment in the outcome on this pariah issue isnt significant enough to be a concern for him personally so ignores the illogical nature of his argument.
Carolyn Harris looks a bit overweight. Perhaps for her own good we should review her diet?
dusty - stop waving your d1ck ffs, it's not a d1ck waving contest and even if it was, I'd be confident I had you covered anyway!
Regulation of alcohol has got about as much to do with the topic as the regulation of murder, burglary, pencil sharpeners or bread. It's irrelevant, unless you are a one dimensional thinker, obsessed with left/right politics.
Regulation of alcohol has got about as much to do with the topic as the regulation of murder, burglary, pencil sharpeners or bread. It's irrelevant, unless you are a one dimensional thinker, obsessed with left/right politics.
CLYDEBANK2916 May 22 13:46Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 11,022 | Blogger: CLYDEBANK29's blog
Carolyn Harris looks a bit overweight.
Indeed - she is another one dimensional thinker obsessed with left/right politics - but for sure she is three dimensional when it comes to the weigh-in!
Carolyn Harris looks a bit overweight.
Indeed - she is another one dimensional thinker obsessed with left/right politics - but for sure she is three dimensional when it comes to the weigh-in!
How is it irrelevant, or is it just not the vice that became an issue you felt you wish to respond to?
You argue that its the impact on a tiny minority of people who become addicted as justification to create a calculation that works in the background waiting for anyone to spend a figure as a percentage of the capital/salary.
So how can buying as much alcohol that not only ruins a persons life but also is a danger to people around not comparable?
Or significantly worse.
You argue that its the impact on a tiny minority of people who become addicted as justification to create a calculation that works in the background waiting for anyone to spend a figure as a percentage of the capital/salary.
So how can buying as much alcohol that not only ruins a persons life but also is a danger to people around not comparable?
Or significantly worse.
I maintain the rules/laws around alcohol have no relevance on the rules around murder/burglary/pencil sharpeners or gambling - but I will indulge you:
Can you point me in the direction of an alcoholic that is spending £100 every 30 seconds on alcohol?
Can you copy and paste some e-mails/tweets from an alcohol company trying to offer an alcoholic free samples?
Can you point me in the direction of an alcoholic that is spending £100 every 30 seconds on alcohol?
Can you copy and paste some e-mails/tweets from an alcohol company trying to offer an alcoholic free samples?
Thats like arguing how many alcoholic drinks are fish and ignores entirely the premise of the defence of imposing sanction on gambling because it ruins people's lives.
This is regulation that stops people do things they want to do even though some people crash and burn while the majority dont.
This is regulation that stops people do things they want to do even though some people crash and burn while the majority dont.
So why isnt there a limit of alcohol purchases to salary?
Can you point me in the direction of the drinks manufacturer that only pedals his product to alcoholics and refuses to do business with responsible drinkers?
dustybin16 May 22 14:04Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 21,903 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
Thats like arguing how many alcoholic drinks are fish
I rest my case.
Thats like arguing how many alcoholic drinks are fish
I rest my case.
Alcohol is advertised to any and all, if you get addicted you have to check yourself into AA for help, you dont get refused sales at the supermarket.
If a person develops a losing problem at gambling then they can self restrict and if the bookie isnt fined for advertising to that individual then thats a problem for the established regulation.
I ask again, why are you selective on the causes of harm?
If a person develops a losing problem at gambling then they can self restrict and if the bookie isnt fined for advertising to that individual then thats a problem for the established regulation.
I ask again, why are you selective on the causes of harm?
I'm not selective - most things with potential to cause harm are governed by laws/rules/regulations.
The laws/rules/regulations for murder, gun ownership, gambling, drinking, drugs and manufacturing pencil sharpeners are all different from one another - but they all exist. Obviously the rules/laws for murder are quite strong and those for the manufacture of pencil sharpeners are (by comparison) very light touch.
Your argument that they should all be the same - is a bit flawed imo. The fact that you don't see a problem with gambling doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. A psychopath might see nothing wrong with murder but it doesn't mean we don't need rules/laws. It is you that is being selective!
The laws/rules/regulations for murder, gun ownership, gambling, drinking, drugs and manufacturing pencil sharpeners are all different from one another - but they all exist. Obviously the rules/laws for murder are quite strong and those for the manufacture of pencil sharpeners are (by comparison) very light touch.
Your argument that they should all be the same - is a bit flawed imo. The fact that you don't see a problem with gambling doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. A psychopath might see nothing wrong with murder but it doesn't mean we don't need rules/laws. It is you that is being selective!
The Management • May 16, 2022 2:06 PM BST
Can you point me in the direction of the drinks manufacturer that only pedals his product to alcoholics and refuses to do business with responsible drinkers?
Where in your logic does AC manifest itself as forcing bookies to take bets from those who can easily afford it?
Can you point me in the direction of the drinks manufacturer that only pedals his product to alcoholics and refuses to do business with responsible drinkers?
Where in your logic does AC manifest itself as forcing bookies to take bets from those who can easily afford it?
The Management • May 16, 2022 2:18 PM BST
I'm not selective - most things with potential to cause harm are governed by laws/rules/regulations.
The laws/rules/regulations for murder, gun ownership, gambling, drinking, drugs and manufacturing pencil sharpeners are all different from one another - but they all exist. Obviously the rules/laws for murder are quite strong and those for the manufacture of pencil sharpeners are (by comparison) very light touch.
Your argument that they should all be the same - is a bit flawed imo. The fact that you don't see a problem with gambling doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. A psychopath might see nothing wrong with murder but it doesn't mean we don't need rules/laws. It is you that is being selective!
Why do you keep refering to things that arnt proven issues that destroy lives?
Im asking how you can determine gambling is a relevant danger that requires regulation to an extent other harms dont.
I'm not selective - most things with potential to cause harm are governed by laws/rules/regulations.
The laws/rules/regulations for murder, gun ownership, gambling, drinking, drugs and manufacturing pencil sharpeners are all different from one another - but they all exist. Obviously the rules/laws for murder are quite strong and those for the manufacture of pencil sharpeners are (by comparison) very light touch.
Your argument that they should all be the same - is a bit flawed imo. The fact that you don't see a problem with gambling doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. A psychopath might see nothing wrong with murder but it doesn't mean we don't need rules/laws. It is you that is being selective!
Why do you keep refering to things that arnt proven issues that destroy lives?
Im asking how you can determine gambling is a relevant danger that requires regulation to an extent other harms dont.
...other far more dangerous harm by any statistic.
There are copious reems of evidnce how harmful alcohol is, but not sufficiently dangerous to have a measure of sales to salry like gambling seem to require.
There are copious reems of evidnce how harmful alcohol is, but not sufficiently dangerous to have a measure of sales to salry like gambling seem to require.
It's not for me to determine that (or you) - it's for the government. They did exactly that in 2005 and that is why the 2005 Act contained elements to protect people from harm. Now they are doing it again. Unfortunately because none of the bookmakers (or the regulator) bothered to comply with the 2005 act - the updated version is likely to be a bit more rigorous (imo).
Also, why do you keep accusing me of determining what is harmful?
That is for the govt - have you even seen/read the 2005 Act?
That is for the govt - have you even seen/read the 2005 Act?
No its true it isnt our job, and that the reulator needs its arse kicking for its failings.
But it doesnt stop you making the decision that spending on betting needs a form of restriction that would ultimately hang over everyone like the sword of Damocles
But it doesnt stop you making the decision that spending on betting needs a form of restriction that would ultimately hang over everyone like the sword of Damocles
Ironically, I am about the only person on here, pointing out that there is no need whatsoever for it to "hang over everyone like the sword of Damocles".
That is the bookmakers choice - target everybody or just target problem gamblers. Can you think of any reason why they (the on-line bookmakers) haven't proposed that yet?
That is the bookmakers choice - target everybody or just target problem gamblers. Can you think of any reason why they (the on-line bookmakers) haven't proposed that yet?
Its still supposition on your behalf though.
If the government impose anything that resembles AC it will be exactly what I just implied; anyone that gets near a bad run will be in danger of not being allowed to bet.
The only question you seem to raise is that the guesses of what that limit looks like.
If the government impose anything that resembles AC it will be exactly what I just implied; anyone that gets near a bad run will be in danger of not being allowed to bet.
The only question you seem to raise is that the guesses of what that limit looks like.
Yep - and I've been open about that throughout (that I'm guessing).
But at least I've been realistic and honest - Rather than pretending it will be £100 per month in order to get con punters (that I have treated despicably) to save my on-line slots and casino games!
But at least I've been realistic and honest - Rather than pretending it will be £100 per month in order to get con punters (that I have treated despicably) to save my on-line slots and casino games!
And as Ive said those who seem not to care about the impact on the sector but are adamant that such restriction are required could easily have counter any suggestion that the bookies were doing such a thing, but havnt.
So putting faith in the is no better that being suspicious of the need to intervene on the behalf of such a minority...especially when they dont apply the same logic to alcoholism.
So putting faith in the is no better that being suspicious of the need to intervene on the behalf of such a minority...especially when they dont apply the same logic to alcoholism.
There's no shame in admitting you have fallen for it all - even Sharp Minds (and people like you in the top 0.5%)
can get suckered!
can get suckered!
My only guilt is to believe governments are ill advised to tell people what they cant do especially when guided be emotional hand wringing entities who seem to avoid the idea that people have personal responsibility.
I dont need the church or the police to tell me not to kill, we regulate ourselves.
I dont need the church or the police to tell me not to kill, we regulate ourselves.
Tell that to Fred West, Harold Shipman, Korals and Bet635 - self regulation doesn't always work!
100% correct TM, everyone is responsible for their own choices, end of. Its not for the woke brigade and cotton wool generation to try and take those choices away.
self regulation works adequately considering the regulation that would be required to have stopped those hell bent on killing
Perhaps the sharp edge knives must go too?
If somebody want to uin themselves then let them, if they are too stupid to stop themselves then thats unfortunate, the medicine is worse than the cause.
Perhaps the sharp edge knives must go too?
If somebody want to uin themselves then let them, if they are too stupid to stop themselves then thats unfortunate, the medicine is worse than the cause.
So long as the person they take down with them isn't you, your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter?
Ive never know the actions of any bad gambler be a threat to any of them.
Alcoholic?
Slightly more so
Alcoholic?
Slightly more so
Good for you, that you have not been close to a gambling addict. Sorry to hear that you or somebody you care about has maybe suffered at the hands of an alcoholic.
It guess it just goes to prove that alcohol addiction is a real thing that impacts on society, whereas gambling addiction is a made up thing that has no impact on cost to wider society.
It guess it just goes to prove that alcohol addiction is a real thing that impacts on society, whereas gambling addiction is a made up thing that has no impact on cost to wider society.
TM, you are correct that gambling addiction causes serious harm to individuals and those around them. But it is no one elses fault apart from the said gambler. I think you would be great on those "where there is blame, there is a claim" adverts. Time for people to be responsible for their own actions.
It was a rather average attempt at being glib TM as it is mostly accurate.
Perhaps that sums up exactly where we differ so fundementally, you thought that statement was rather trite wheras I thought it was simply honest.
That's a bit too much of a blanket statement imo NWTS - sometimes where there is blame, there is a claim imo. Sweeping statements, generalisations and extreme views are very much in fashion at the moment. I prefer to judge each case on its own merit.
But only where they are gambling related 
And the other vices dont exist
And the other vices dont exist
TM its hardly a sweeping statement, its the blindingly obvious. Correct me if i am wrong, but no one forces a gambler to register an account, to load up funds into that account, to open a bank account to deposit/withdraw funds from do they? At every step they are making a conscious choice. That is not societies fault, its not the advertising teams at the gambling companies fault, its not the apple/samsung companies fault for the new technology allowing access to apps. Unfortunately it is the fault of said individual.
Until it happens weve no idea of what the proposed limit will be.
The last I read from a 'government insider' on various newspaper websites, was that it would likely be a couple of thousand which is where they do background checks currently I believe.
Anyone who thinks this means that affordability checks won't be a problem to you is missing the point. It doesn't matter that YOU aren't affected by a £2,000 limit. The problem is that the people you want to be betting against are the ones who will disappear. The punter who does a monkey, deposits two grand to lay a 5.0 shot to get it back, watches that win, and finds they can't deposit another £5,000 to lay the next favourite.
In other words, the people who provide the value.
The last I read from a 'government insider' on various newspaper websites, was that it would likely be a couple of thousand which is where they do background checks currently I believe.
Anyone who thinks this means that affordability checks won't be a problem to you is missing the point. It doesn't matter that YOU aren't affected by a £2,000 limit. The problem is that the people you want to be betting against are the ones who will disappear. The punter who does a monkey, deposits two grand to lay a 5.0 shot to get it back, watches that win, and finds they can't deposit another £5,000 to lay the next favourite.
In other words, the people who provide the value.
Exchanges simply must have special dispensation that aligns them with licensed operatives.
There is no comparison in the tradition 'punter' sense that could work equally between somebody putting on a bet with a bookie and one providing a liability on an exchange.
There is no comparison in the tradition 'punter' sense that could work equally between somebody putting on a bet with a bookie and one providing a liability on an exchange.
screaming - I have aknowledged that many times. The biggest impact affordability checks will have (assuming they are done correctly) is that they will stop mugs/losers from losing quite so so much quite so quickly.
But if you think any new serial mugs/losers have been finding their way onto the exchange for the past 12 years or so, I disagree. The exchange has been eating itself since about 2008.
But if you think any new serial mugs/losers have been finding their way onto the exchange for the past 12 years or so, I disagree. The exchange has been eating itself since about 2008.
Careful, dusty. By emphasizing the difference between an exchange punter and a bookmaker's punter, you're leaving the way open for separate taxation of winning punters and licensing of layers.
Some fecker has been taking too much out of the eco-system too quickly - yes via PC - but also via slots, casino, live casino, exchange games, virtual sports, etc, etc, etc.
Regarding the Exchange - Affordability checks (if set too low) might finish off a patient that is already on life support - but I'm pretty sure that Sam Ryan would record a verdict of "Suicide" or at very best "Assisted suicide"!
Regarding the Exchange - Affordability checks (if set too low) might finish off a patient that is already on life support - but I'm pretty sure that Sam Ryan would record a verdict of "Suicide" or at very best "Assisted suicide"!
If you could have got your condescending friends who take it upon themselves to tell everyone they have to have everything analysed in line with the lowest ability to have framed the debate against slots only and the suggested refusal of traditional accepting of bets then more people might have supported them.
They're no more my friends than they are yours dusty. I dislike the extremity of their thinking as much as I dislike the extremity of yours.
It doesn't have to be a straight choice between extreme (failed) political ideologies (in crude terms spivs versus commies!) - it's not a straight choice between leave it alone altogether or £100 across the board.
It doesn't have to be a straight choice between extreme (failed) political ideologies (in crude terms spivs versus commies!) - it's not a straight choice between leave it alone altogether or £100 across the board.
I've still never heard anyone from the "anti-brigade' mention £100 btw - I have only ever seen that proposed by "The Industry" and the Racing Post (on a daily basis).
Another drip-feed anti-AC article by the Racing Post - the voicebox of the bookies. It's called "dodgy dossier" - a scaremongering headline - that stated it could mislead the government in gambling review eg citing £1.27bn cost to the state due to economic and social harm; betting shops more prevalent in deprived areas; relationships between expenditure on gambling and harm; etc; to be inaccurate and convenient.
I find it astounding the Racing Post stooge responsible could not see the relevance of the above to, locations of high street bookies, cost of absenteeism and economic loss to the state, cost to NHS and social services, etc to FOBT. It's blatantly obvious after over 2 decades of abusing the betting and gaming act and disregarding responsibility by scumbag bookies how we've arrived at the present high level of problem gambling and addiction.
The Racing Post is once again guilty of promoting the cause ie anti-AC of their paymaster - the bookies. They just cannot see AC is here because of the misery and financial despair caused by addiction to fobt - the crack cocaine of gambling - which is the major earner of the bookies.
I find it astounding the Racing Post stooge responsible could not see the relevance of the above to, locations of high street bookies, cost of absenteeism and economic loss to the state, cost to NHS and social services, etc to FOBT. It's blatantly obvious after over 2 decades of abusing the betting and gaming act and disregarding responsibility by scumbag bookies how we've arrived at the present high level of problem gambling and addiction.
The Racing Post is once again guilty of promoting the cause ie anti-AC of their paymaster - the bookies. They just cannot see AC is here because of the misery and financial despair caused by addiction to fobt - the crack cocaine of gambling - which is the major earner of the bookies.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539