Latest on Affordability Checks
|
By:
And impose the most draconian measures to boot?
|
|
By:
We need to see evidence to see if they are equally vigorous with their slots customers, that would be very interesting to see.
If all things are equal then it would be a wonder if there were any slots players left, but I suspect all things are not equal. |
|
By:
People are not addicted to gambling,they are addicted to getting money,and punting on horses and football is a legal way to get it.
try giving every punter in the land a cuddly toy if they back a winner and see how many are still gambling when the cuddly toy rule is implemented.this would prove that gambling is not addictive its a craving for money that is addictive.  |
|
By:
If you're addicted to winning money, you really shouldn't be playing casino games or (except under very special circumstances!) the slots...
|
|
By:
That certainly makes sense for BF, Duffy, given the firm's owners. However, it doesn't explain why the other exchanges and some of the traditional book-makers seem to be joining in with relish.
|
|
By:
Duffy We need to see evidence to see if they are equally vigorous with their slots customers, that would be very interesting to see. Bingo!
That is, in my opinion, the thread's finest line of reasoning. I think the response would be "no." Why would they target people who, if they keep playing, will profit without taking any risks? |
|
By:
That would be very short-sighted of them. If you think the 'gambling issue' can be fixed at all - and I'm sceptical - then you've got no chance of doing it unless you eliminate the slots/casino customers. Those are mostly the ones who get highly-addicted and pump in huge amounts without any thought whatsoever.
At some stage - perhaps in around five years time, when a Labour/Coalition Government is looking for a crowd-pleasing gesture to try and increase its chances of a second term - the authorities are going to insist that something is done about the slots/casino games. If the gambling firms have already ripped the heart out of their sports betting operations, they're going to be in trouble. |
|
By:
HonkyJoe 23 Jul 22 20:35
That certainly makes sense for BF, Duffy, given the firm's owners. However, it doesn't explain why the other exchanges and some of the traditional book-makers seem to be joining in with relish. It does if you consider just what is the cross section of customers they are targeting and I'd be curious to see how many slots etc customers are being allowed to slip through the net. The evidence is all there and has been for a long while now that the books don't want anyone who even half looks like they have a clue. How many times do we hear stories about people being restricted but still allowed to help themselves to the casino products, this reveals the books real intentions and it was this when the books signaled that they were prepared to lose customers if they think they are not wholly profitable and this was happening a long time before all this affordability stuff came in, all that has happened now is that the current societal hand wringing has given the books an excuse to go further and isolate those very same customers still further and all under the banner of safer gambling but without any obligation to show who they are targeting.I think that they are calculating that they won't be forced to show those crucial numbers which would put them in a more awkward spot. So as far as the books seemingly cutting down swathes of customers, well, they've been doing it for the last few years anyway in reality and only because they can afford to isolate certain people and I bet it's for a large part the same customers that they'd already written off through restricted stakes that are being lost now, but they won't be showing GOVT that they were already restricted it will just look like they are doing this now as anew. So, in short, what is the percentage of people that have been targeted now that were already suffering restricted bet staking? I'd be curious to know this |
|
By:
Fair points. Sadly.
|
|
By:
I have several accounts with High Street bookmakers ( small stake ''billy'' ), two of them continually try to direct me to slots & casino with free spins ! Surely the G C should look at the practice's of the Big 6, and do something about there enticement of the weak & the feckless ?....
|
|
By:
How many people would continue to play casino games and slots if they were given a cuddly toy when they win
 ? |
|
By:
Only have to look at your Exposure Limits on the My Account page. The limit on the Main Wallet was raised from the default 5k a few years back, but is nowhere near the 100k limit that is provided on the Exchange Games Wallet.
|
|
By:
Is it at all possible that the books and exchanges are pre-empting the severe restrictions that are feared and enacting them NOW, so in a few months they can show the m.p/decision makers the damage impending draconian measures have already brought
In short, "look at the mess our businesses are already in as a result of your rumoured/proposed restrictions" Or is that kind of temporary self destruction for illustrative purposes, pie in the sky thinking? |
|
By:
:wesdag
"Why jump now instead of wait to be pushed?" Presumably because one would rather jump from a small building than be pushed from a tall one? I can think of two scenarios: - the books fear even more draconian checks than the ones they are currently making, and hope the checks they have chosen to do will head off that part of the White Paper or - they fear they will be given a very short timescale from the change in law to being only able to accept bets from customers who have been affordability-checked, and want to get a sizeable section of their customer-base so checked in advance, so they do not have to shut up shop for months while doing them from a standing start. but it could be anything, frankly. |
|
By:
I read a Bloomberg article which said that some of the restrictions for physical casino operators will be relaxed. They'll be able to install as many as 80 machines, rather than the 20 they're limited to currently. And they'll be able to extend credit to, erm, wealthy foreigners...
Could it be that reduced online products will be the price they agree to pay in order to have more of a high street presence again? |
|
By:
If people wanna do their brains with their own money, why shouldn't they?? Credit card deposits are long gone.
|
|
By:
How are they justifying not restricting lottery games, scratchcards.
|
|
By:
They can't duffy. It's all bollox and the mind boggles at what Betfair and tuthers are doing at the moment.
|
|
By:
HGS
My thoughts exactly I dread being pulled up on my account because ive made one to many £10 desposits to play tezs 300 bet challenge Im gonna flip and im not kidding, its making me rage just thinking about it What gives them the fooking right |
|
By:
It's the not knowing that's the most maddening of all. Who knows how close or how far from the 'limit' any of us are? You might be able to add another zero to your bet size, or you might be within a whisker of being locked out.
|
|
By:
So to summarise, there is no regulation in place yet, and they are just doing it their own way?
Has anybody been told that it is a regulatory requirement when being asked for documentation? If this act was passed, would it apply to bookmakers licensed in UK regardless where their customer is from? Or customers resident in UK, regardless where the bookmaker is from? What are those betting through a third party doing as a solution? I imagine telling them that the source of funds was a third party would not solve any problems? |
|
By:
It would just give them an excuse not to pay your winnings
|
|
By:
"If this act was passed, would it apply to bookmakers licensed in UK regardless where their customer is from?
Or customers resident in UK, regardless where the bookmaker is from?" UK-based bookies typically use offshore (Malta or Gibraltar or CI) licences for non-UK customers. Non-UK based bookies should not be taking UK customer bets unless they have a UK licence. So I'd say it will apply to all residents of the UK (and only to residents of the UK) betting through legit legal bookmakers. |
|
By:
Mansionbet, Betathome pulled out of the UK permanently, Marathonbet say they have temporarily, and Betbull ceased trading. That's since March. I'm sure there are others
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Thank u
|
|
By:
IMS did you withdraw that 10k profit and then deposit £7k which you subsequently lost? or did you keep the £10k in the account and it's now down to £3k?
|
|
By:
Nope so since the "hacking" scandal like a year or two ago with accounts being emptied I am always extra paranoid, too paranoid really.
I am laying them at fair prices, I only keep about a 2 or 3 lay's worth tank price dependant, this is theoretical its now like 3 WEEKS+ AGO, I laid like 4 high priced ones in a day, needing 3 deposits and boom on my case. Ok yep the depositing was reasonably quick fire. |
|
By:
Thanks IMS. The obvious action to take for some is not to withdraw winnings. If a strategy of the business is to prevent it's customers from spending money it doesn't bode well for the future of the business. It definitely doesn't bode well for horse racing or betting on it. It surely has smaller margins, higher risk and higher costs for bookies compared to sports betting and casino stuff. And it's a declining sport too.
Fwiw I don't subscribe to the view that exchange customers are more adversely hit than casino games, certainly not deliberately. If they are it's because exchange betting has higher variance, rather than a deliberate policy. It would make no sense at all. If you lose turnover from a punter on the exchange, you don't just lose their turnover, you also lose the turnover that their turnover generates. That's not the case with casino games. Bookies also rely on the prices of the exchange for their odds. Were the exchange to crumble, they'd have to employ odds compilers again. That might not be economical. |
|
By:
I think it's foreseeable that horse racing in the UK becomes Tote only
|
|
By:
I wonder if all this rubbish on checks will only apply to those who haven't already set up limits on their accounts?
If you've had limits applied that keep a natural 'limit' on what you can spend, and been happy with that for some time, why would they need affordability checks? |
|
By:
No stu. A mate had a limit and now they want doocs.
|
|
By:
A limit agreed with betfair btw many months ago (without docs).
|
|
By:
Ok ta, so that makes no sense in that case, just like this whole thing...
 |
|
By:
The good news is I got a response 3 weeks later.
The bad news is there is no verdict: yet more documents req. I've honestly been TOO patient, nee wonder liquidity is just on its arris. |
|
By:
farcical
|
|
By:
It is ridiculous, the idea people can’t now lose…or even just ‘waste’ time not winning.
It must be quite a strict bar for acceptable levels of wealth to be ‘allowed’ the freedom to not win….that might as well draw stumps on the exchange now. |
|
By:
It's not wealth, it's earnings AFAIK.
I said it on another thread about reckless spending. Wasn't about ACs for gambling, there are many "worse" forms of reckless spending imo, but the comment was if it wasn't for the reckless (and extreme) spending of the very wealthy we'd all be driving Trabants, with a Cuban infrastructure and a Venezuelan healthcare system. I did A-level economics and also did a couple of modules in it at Uni. One comment that I always remember is that if everyone acted in a way that was best for them, then the effect on everyone would be devastating. That it was in fact essential that people spent money that it wasn't in their interests to do, as that is what keeps the economy and business ticking over |
|
By:
I've not been very active for the past 3 months and have had only limited exposure to pretty unappealing betting mediums in that time (almost exclusively snooker, which feels like it's completely dead on its arse, but we have only had qualies or minor ranking tournaments in that timeframe, and I'm reluctant to draw any firm conclusions from that).
Is this having an appreciable effect on liquidity across the board already (multiple sports)? |
|
By:
The whole situation is farcical , as already stated, but from what I can determine from those experiencing this nanny interference is that it is the depositing that mainly triggers the action. Like Swaddle I lay outsiders and need a reasonable balance and despite some awful days, I've managed not to make a deposit this year and just rebuilt my bank after said tragic days. Touching wood, I've had no communications from the Towers.
So keeping a healthy balance might be the price we have to pay for giving them our business |
