There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 492 comments are related to the topic:
Latest on Affordability Checks
Latest on Affordability Checks
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 492
|
By:
Wouldn’t the most logical approach to have attempted to defend the very product from which they make that profit for shareholders?
Bf won’t make anything like as much being in the data selling game especially when that market is cornered by the big players like google etc. They would be advised to stick to what they know and not bend over double for this left ideology attempting to change everything from the dictionary to personal choices. |
|
By:
Trident - Good rant!
|
|
By:
I'm all about helping vulnerable people with gambling. We must protect them from online casino games that are highly addictive.
So what's your problem? You can't have it both ways. If you think we need others to watch over us, and you said as much in that quote above. Then you've given them licence to do whatever they wish, in order to protect some of us from ourselves. Even if it means restricting all of us. |
|
By:
Dr. Crippen's[/b] But what I'm trying to aticulate is that casino games and slots are games of chance. Horse racing has elements of that, but the outcome is not as random as a spin of a slot machine.
You can't have it both ways. I think we can... Casinos and slot machines have been scientifically proven to be highly addictive. Why can we differentiate between the two? I'm not saying horse racing betting couldn't become a problem for some, but it seems this is a blanket approach. |
|
By:
I dont think bf/flutter would be so silly as to sell that sort of information on.
It would have pretty serious recriminations given it would be undermining a government initiative and would seriously impact any future relationship in USA gambling markets. |
|
By:
I'm with Dr Crippin on this.
Who am I to say that casino games and slots is a bad thing that should be restricted. If those things give some people excitement in their lives, who am I to deny them this pleasure. We are all in this together: professionals, degenerates, mugs, arbers, winners and losers. |
|
By:
Trident what do you think the Trigger for the check was? Was there abnormal activity? Large loss? Large Deposit? Multiple deposits?
As dusty has said it would be useful for those being checked tell us why they think they have been targeted. Thanks. Same question to anybody checked as well please. |
|
By:
...roulette spinners, black jack players, poker players, share traders, bitcoin miners, bullion investors, racetrack bookies...
I could go on and on...but we can't allow these intrusions into our lives. What we have in our bank accounts is no business of online betting firms or the government. |
|
By:
six_six_six 20 Jul 22 13:24
Trident what do you think the Trigger for the check was? the trigger is multiple deposits. |
|
By:
That's what I suspect. I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth (as it were).
|
|
By:
six six six For me it was large loss ( for me loss ) over a month, (not for the year though) Which happens.... I also have a loss limit implemented too, from the opening of my account 15 years ago.
|
|
By:
Thank you Trident
|
|
By:
Might those large losses/deposits have tipped the balance between an 'acceptable' ratio and an 'unacceptable' one?
Remember they implement their own calculations to determine which HRPC bracket you are in based on the amount of commission paid to lifetime profit |
|
By:
Its only a guess, but I bet its not far out....that if you dont see your lifetime account for PC then you are in the very likely catagory of recieving the documentation request
|
|
By:
Might those large losses/deposits have tipped the balance between an 'acceptable' ratio and an 'unacceptable' one? Good point, Im fully verfied etc etc. Strange thing is I havent used Smarkets since the Grand National. That "Loss" was from winnings however. I can still use Betfair but for how long:(
|
|
By:
It's strange that the firms are aggressively pursuing the 'affordability check' avenue
I'm expecting the mandate (from someone whose been involved at the House of Commons) to go down the 'soft check' route |
|
By:
I broadly support 'affordability checks' because I see gambling as more generally more damaging to people's lives than most of you lot. However, the 'soft check' tactic should be tried first. Requesting bank statements is way beyond what I deem acceptable and I'd say it should never go that far
|
|
By:
"most of you lot"
Get off your high horse ffs. |
|
By:
Do you think drinking is also damaging to other people's lives, Big Cat?
|
|
By:
I see gambling as more generally more damaging to people's lives than most of you lot.
BigCat, you miss the point: It's not that gambling is damaging our lives, but that gambling is our lives. |
|
By:
I do not gamble, I bet.
Anybody else think similarly? |
|
By:
The anti-gambling faction (and I'm not saying Big Cat is one of those) would say you're making their case for them, Marksman. It's an unhealthy unseamly way to make a living, and we should be going off and spending our time running homes for stray cats and helping little old ladies across the street. The fact that it should be our choice whether we want to do that or not is completely beyond their comprehension.
I can sort of understand that there are some people who have such a compulsion within them that they probably shouldn't be gambling. However, most of us understand the risks, and are quite happy to take them even though we land ourselves with those occasional months where we've gone through our pay-packets a little too early. That doesn't make us out-of-control addicts. I know lots of people who maxed out their credit cards (not on gambling!) and are struggling to make their bills as a result. Nobody's telling them they shouldn't be allowed to spend their money on shoes, or holidays, or what not. |
|
By:
Agreed 666. One other thing that really aggravates me is the way people bracket us with those clowns pumping their pounds into slots, bingo, and scratchcards. I've spent years looking through reams of data, and creating programs that can give me a bit of an insight into the quality of a horse race etc. I've also been through periods of overbetting, and have learnt my lesson. The idea that I should be treated the same way as the slot-addicted benefits chumps who fill many a bad BBC drama makes me extremely angry.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
racing post every day for a month would cost more than 100
excellent FF . that is a fine example of just how stupid the whole concept is |
|
By:
People keep on here keep talking about a deposit limit. But the official proposals - and most of the suggestions from bookies - seem to be talking about loss limits instead. Is there any reason some of us here think the restrictions will be on deposits rather than how much you can actually bet?
|
|
By:
Gambling is just capitalism raw.
Keynes argued that the changing face of work meant at some point in the future governments would be best suited to employ citizens in pointless work, he suggested old mines be bought by the government and cash filled into bottles and burried with contracts sold to the private sector for the rights to dig it up and keep the money. Most economists eventually agreed this type of nonsense would infact be required in the post work age...the age we now live in. The fact gambling creates a sector where people are employed and very little end product is no different, the government should be embracing it instead of citing bleeding heart liberals calling such as slots 'the crack cocaine of gambling'. The truth is people need to be educated as to risk, banning activity serves no purpose and churns out stupid people. |
|
By:
'most economists' is to be ignored. not for nothing is economics known as the 'dismal science'. its not one.
might explain economists have predicted 8 of the last 3 recessions |
|
By:
^might explain why
|
|
By:
I think what the white paper says is immaterial, the books have found a way to finally kill the exchanges and even if the white paper was lenient I think (Paddy's because that who it is a bookie, not betfair now) would still continue their assault on exchange players at their own far more restrictive way all in the name of protecting the vulnerable which is of course nonsense.
I wonder if Paddy's players on their traditional site are encountering equally tough measures. And how are slots players getting on because is these measures applied to them they would all be gone far quicker than exchange players. One thing I wish the white paper would do is to force the books to reveal the percentages of predominantly exchange players, sportsbook players, slots players targeted. |
|
By:
It doesnt get around the fact anything that creates employment across a large sector in an age where traditional employment has been disrupted, should be encouraged.
It's easy shutting things down, you have to have a plan to offset the unemplyment it creates. |
|
By:
If exchanges are under threat then the likes of Black can employ their finance in re-starting a venture that lost its way, if he feels strongly enough.
|
|
By:
I got pumped for info by the Tote (I left) even though they recognised was a winning account, placepots religiously at level stakes and didn't indulge in bingo or slots despite their best efforts. My crime was taking my money out of the account after I won.
Explained I would just play their product on BF or another 'agent' and they would just be losing the commission. Common sense did not prevail. But just noticed my deposits into the national lottery far exceed total deposits into the Tote. Wonder if they will be on the list? |
|
By:
I already explained that i was 10 bags up ish on the year and lost 6 in a very short period of time, and the fact that I dont keep a lot in here in case of hacking. Add to the fact I am a lifetime loser of 20K in 7 years. Plenty of swift deposits, looking back oretty stupid of me (not the selections, they cant be helped) the way in which the banking was done.
They might actually be doing me a favour, I have found the liquidity/botting/x matcher on here absolutely pathetic/brutal over the past 6 month. |
|
By:
I think you are onto something duffy. How much you have won in the past ( even including big profits that week ) backing and laying costs for zero. There must be more winners on here than normal bookie punters because you can lay/trade inc. IR. We are taking too much out of their game because the gross profits here compared with the turnover will be tiny.
|
|
By:
But thats where PC came in.
If you 'beat the house' they artificially create a monkey and put it on your back to the amount they expect to profit from you. In cases where they think people might attempt to avoid it then those punters arnt value and possibly pushed out. |
|
By:
It concern's me that addiction wrecks lives on a fairly wide scale, but I'm not anti-gambling or anti-alcohol or anti-out-else
I've not really thought about the subject enough to have a really strong opinion, but I'm guessing the gambling industry does need to be better regulated. Maybe the focus of attention should be on availability of treatment for those affected, rather than murdering the majority of gamblers who have a reasonably healthy relationship with the game. I dunno what the answer is, but I'm dead against handing over highly personal data and imposing arbitrary and absurd loss-limits |
|
By:
notfair/pp do not want to kill the exchange as some parts are very profitable-poofball cricket tennis and a couple of others. racing is a pain for obvious reasons
|
|
By:
racing is a pain for obvious reasons
please clarify for the real dopey people such as myself mitolo , thanks |
|
By:
i'm guessing you are talking about laying specifically
 |