It's like the twilight zone. How the hell as it come to this. All to protect some gambling degenerates that form an incredibly small % of punters.
The collection of data for the bookies must have them grinning ear to ear.

It's completely insane cuckoo that's what it is. Absolutely mental.

Programme last night on bbc3 / 4
About gambling
Guys parents went to number10.
They wanted to make the government take responsibility for their son
Ending his life

The irony of it all is that government intervention doesn’t alter the fact the person with the feckless gambling problems remains stupid as to maths/probability.
It doesn’t improve anyone, it just draws in a boatload of grey area individuals who seemingly had no problems.

Who is making this decision?

Anyone produced documents to here yet
To get limits Increased

Hopefully the White Paper will clarify exactly where the line is, it sounds like individuals are getting differing information on an ad hoc basis.
With any luck Sunak will get the job, it sounds he takes this issue more seriously than any of the other blow hards.

It’s certainly an effective way of pressing those they suspect of avoiding PC
I remember them saying in that last QA a couple of years ago they had a new way of restricting them.

The problem is there is no benefit to the exchange, they seem to just shut players down which itself takes liquidity with them.

What's happening there airto?

The conspiracy theorist might suspect they are trying to kill off exchanges.

I don't trust the bookies and my data as far as I can throw em. feck that.
The odds are you send them your financial info, bend over backwards, and they increase your limits in a negligible fashion?
Anyone on here had their limits increased much after complying?

@longbridge

Several factors really. No I don't really trust them and my finances are my business. Not like I've used them for 5 minutes. Been a customer for an age and never bothered them before but now they are having to look like they're doing something. I can live without the exchange if they fail to see reason. Have done so without the purple for long enough. Don't mind KYC documents, (should be requested from the start). I would put up with this to prove who I am and where I live, but whilst my betting is funded through my bank account in the black, they will not be getting any further info on my financials. Enough is enough.

As I understand:

1. 100 deposit
2. 100 deposit for the month
3. Combined
4. 100 net deposit re-set each month, no carry over

its bound to end up in the Supreme Court and I cant see the government winning.
It's unprecedented as far as I know, when other has the government said you can only spend so much on a thing?

There is already a measure of whether you can afford things, you either have the money or you dont.
To have the money, but deemed not to have enough has to be against your human rights.
There have been several cases where the government have been taken to court recently, admittedly the government won, but each on its own merit.

I've been suspended by smarkets for non-disclosure. They wanted evidence from bookies if I was arbing alongside all the other bumpf they feel entitled to.
They can whistle

dustybin 19 Jul 22 19:27 
its bound to end up in the Supreme Court and I cant see the government winning.

Bookmaker Geoff Banks has been quite 'vocal' on Twitter saying the big firms could easily challenge this in the courts, but it sounds like he thinks they're quite happily collecting people's data and using it to their advantage.

My questions

1. Is it 100 deposit or 100 net loss

2. The minute you hit the 100 net loss be it day 1 or day 19, that's it for the month.


The articles that came out earlier this month were all suggesting the White Paper would feature a £100 net loss over 30 days and a £1,000 net loss over 24 hours. (Articles in May were talking about a £2,000 net loss over a 90-day period, but the latest reports are suggesting it'll be a shorter timeframe than that.)

Basically, if you go over the net loss limit, the bookies will be forced to do a soft check on you. That won't reveal much more than your credit score, so presumably if that wasn't astronomically high, they would then move to asking you for a hard check. At that point, you'd be told you had to send them details of your salary, monthly spending etc. An appropriate loss per month would then be worked out for you. It doesn't look as though how much you have in your BF account will be of any relevance. Nor will money in the bank.

All of this has yet to be confirmed, of course. Even if the White Paper is published this week, they won't be passing the legislation this year, and the reforms may well be watered down over that process. To an extent, though, that's beside the point, as the book-makers seem to be bringing in these rules themselves. So far I've only heard of people being forced to go through the process when they lose several thousand in one quick splurge, but that may well change.

As some have already suggested, it wouldn't surprise me if this is finally the moment book-makers kill off the exchanges for good. I notice Andrew Black's a bit concerned about the moves..

Perhaps it would be more helpful if those telling everyone they were asked for documentation, provide their general commission paid/gross profit ratio
If they don’t know it….then there is the problem.

That was my first thought, too, when I read the Jeff Banks claim above.  It seems totally counter-intuitive to me.