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:
It is now 1983 where it will soon be 1984 where everything you do is monitored, on Monday I tried to deposit 3k , immediately came up with a message saying I have exceeded my limit , when I looked on my account details it said £500 per month so I went on live chat , they said I needed to speak to their safe gambling team , so a telephone appointment was set up for 3.00 , but they phoned at 2.55 , I was making a drink ready to sit down to speak to them , eventually after spending another 30 minutes on live chat I got the call , they asked me so many questions and in the end said my monthly deposit would be limited £100 per month , I said that considering most of my backs/lays were anything from £100 to £500 , I argued with him , but in the end I just told him what I thought of him and Betfair and that if they carried on at that rate he would be out of a job within a year or so.
|
|
By:
And there you have it. Standard bollox for anyone they contact.
|
|
By:
It is earnings, but if you make the case wealth is taken into account also
Ofc, individually people are getting different tunes, perhaps based on their own situations and successfulness |
|
By:
So keeping a healthy balance might be the price we have to pay for giving them our business
Which is a nice illustration of Clydebank's point. The only way there can be an exchange is if half its users fail to maintain a healthy balance. And the only way an exchange can generate revenue for its owners to keep the site running is if all but a very few users fail to maintain a healthy balance. Betfair used to understand this, hence their various wheezes to get rid of the winners. But the new generation of management seem to have forgotten this completely in their rush to be socially responsible. |
|
By:
I still don't understand the end game, though. It WILL only go one way.
|
|
By:
It's bizarre, isn't it? It's what happens when companies get big enough to employ customer-service or human-resource departments. The employees running them are trained in customer services or human resources, but they lack any knowledge of how the business employing them actually works or makes money. That grubby part of the business is of no interest to them.
|
|
By:
I went into "my account" to find out my deposit limit and I couldn't find it. All I found was that my minimum deposit with a Visa Debit Card was £5. Does this mean that I am exempt to deposit limits. My "exposure limit" is £15k, so can I assume that I can deposit enough to go all the way to my 15k limit without questions being asked?
|
|
By:
I very much doubt it Marksman
|
|
By:
And frankra ows Betfair 700
 |
|
By:
No white paper,no lead on figures,yet it appears that some firms are so scared of the Gambling Commission,and possible fines,that they have well and truly jumped the gun.Nobody should have to produce any paperwork showing their apparent worth,status etc.,it is a serious breach of confidentiality,which at present,hasn't been necessary according to the law of the land.
Add to that the absurd restrictions being placed on some accounts,the world of betting,as we have known it for many years,appears to be entering an extremely bad phase,correction,has already entered it. For years,in the racecourse betting rings,bookmakers had to display a magnetic strip on their price board clearly showing how much they wee prepared to lay a horse to lose for,e.g. £500,£1000,£2000,and it had to be strictly adhered to,or get pulled up by the then NJPC,which was a good rule. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
freddiewilliams.
Why do you have comment when you do not know the full facts WAC. |
|
By:
Ure welcome.facts my a££.
|
|
By:
.Marksman, go to "my account" and you'll see a tab near top saying "spend budget"
That is the amount you can deposit. |
|
By:
The only explanation I can find for the current stance is to prevent any more high profile gambling harm stories coming to the public domain while the gambling white paper/review is in progress.
The GC & firms can say any issues were in the past & they've now got their house in order. Hopefully, everything can then be less restrictive & the govt & do-gooders can fcuk off for another 20 years. |
|
By:
JCM
Not everyone has that shown, mine doesnt have such a figure for eg I read somewhere and I cant recall where it was, that the number of accounts that have entered into this 'agreement' of self restrict is used as a % of total accounts, and advertised as a sign of compliance. They are obviousy throwing a number to the wolves in getting this figure, but as swad's experience shows they seem to run a rather high bar for people who arnt showing profit |
|
By:
How would that figure provided by the bookie be verified & by whom?
|
|
By:
Punters have been restricted for a few years now by way of ridiculously low stakes allowed, this was happening long BEFORE this recent nonsense., so this was a very clear signal back then that the books were HAPPY to lose customers so this has very little to do with any social acceptance concerns.
What has happened in actual fact is that the current culture has given the books a free shot to be able to ramp up their attempts at inconveniencing exchange and sports bettors under the cloak of customer care. Again they have been happy for a good few years, and again before this recent nonsense, to allow their shops to become glorified casinos with an ever decreasing amount of sports bettor business all that has happened now is that they are progressing it across the board, if you add on the fact that in the horse racing case the "product" is dead on its ar5e then what are they losing. As for relying on exchanges for their tissues, small potatoes IMO....back a the advent of exchanges the books HATED them with a passion, that has not gone anywhere and they just learned to live alongside them before eventually getting their hands on them and then throttling the life out of them, as time has gone on they've just thrown the sports betting out of the window also. Customers who choose to not hand over documents and get this £100 monthly limit applied to them will find in due course IMO s that they will eventually get squeezed on that and be told that even that 100 is dependent on handing over documents. They want to irritate us, if they find that someone can carry on with the 100 they will come back and pick at the scab in another way. PP have just announced that BOG is being taken away from certain tracks and races, just another drip drip attack on the Sports Bettor. |
|
By:
Jumping-cuckoo-monk
Like dustybin it isn't shown on mine. I have never asked to be restricted and have never clicked on any of this safe gambling nonsense because, imo, there is no such thing. |
|
By:
I like the earlier suggestions in this thread about the comparison with the banking and PPI cases we all know about.
If such restrictions 'should' be in place for safety, then allowing accounts without them for so many years was obviously negligent. Class court cases perhaps? |
|
By:
Just a further side aspect - are similar ACs being put in place for other areas of speculating - for example stock market trading, spread betting....?
Both of those two are far more dangerous IMO than simply betting on an exchange... |
|
By:
^
I wouldn't liken it to PPI myself, in that case the consumer was mis-sold and wouldn't be reasonably expected to realize what they had signed up to. I would compare it to these Rugby players who are now chasing compensation for not being adequately protected by their authorities. As in gambling and in this case Rugby, both parties would surely reasonably know that what they are partaking in would be potentially harmful to them at some point but still chose to partake. |
|
By:
It is a deposit limit not a loss limit.
Provided you have a well funded account you can lose thousands with no restrictions provided you win it back. So the example above of winning £3k one day and losing £2k the next does not trigger anything. If you are someone who does arbing or matched betting and likes take the £3k out and then desposit £2k the next day you might run into problems. |
|
By:
I think the confusion came about because the people working on this thought that a desposit was the same thing as a loss.
There was no understand that a deposit could be turned over many times before it is all lost or a decent profit is made. |
|
By:
Yes, they basically treat any money withdrawn as if it had not existed.
If I withdraw 3k one day and then deposit 2k the next day I am in effect saying to BF that the 3k, once withdrawn is sat in a little box entitled "gambling funds only" and is therefore ring fenced from other financial pulls that I might face in day to day life. BF are saying that they can't accept that as gospel and that you may have spent the withdrawn money, and indeed may have withdrawn it in order to meet a financial obligation and then they want to check when you deposit again. Also, the mere fact of withdrawing and then almost immediately depositing similar amounts, might, by some people be viewed as haphazard and only serve in encouraging intrusion. Bf take the view that if you have a well funded account and lose money, it's almost not like real money and only becomes real money when you have to deposit real money from your bank account. In much the same way, I keep records of profits and losses, but if I win or lose money on a given day but it doesn't involve depositing or withdrawing I basically ignore it. I only "count" what goes in and out of my bank account. |
|
By:
Serious question though - does anyone know whether this is being in any way applied to areas such as:
Stock market trading Spread betting Surely, the logic should be exactly the same in terms of risk/danger to individuals? |
|
By:
Thats a question to make your MP squirm
They wont restrict the holy stock markets |
|
By:
Indeed dusty - but many stock market traders are sole individuals just like us, using their own funds to risk....
|
|
By:
Spread bets and CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 76% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading spread bets and CFDs with this provider.
IGMarkets These are highly leveraged, meaning people lose multiples of the actual money they put down, and at no point own the underlying asset, and get turfed out after a certain period and forced to buy again making more profit to the brokers These are the real questions MPs must be made to answer |
|
By:
spot on duffy. What's really disturbing is you may have withdrawn a large sum ( let's say winnings ) because you want it under your mattress or in the bank rather than in any bookmaker account. No other reason. Then after a poor run playing the rest of your winnings you want to deposit a decent amount. All under control. There's no evidence whatsoever to say you have a gambling problem. In fact if you are lifetime in the black as I am the chances of that are very slim whatever your regular income.
|
|
By:
Dusty - if they argue that some of us wanting be in £50s on a few of the races, are supposedly more at risk than those losing 10,000+ a pop on spread or stock trading....
Would like to see that tested in law. |
|
By:
The fact that by law all brokers are forced to display that horrendous reality of over three quarters of those trading CFDs are losers just proves that anyone using the brokers for that must come under AC scrutiny if gambling has.
|
|
By:
I know for a fact (as I've read them) there have been papers published in academic journals that show stock trading is just as open to addiction, compulsion and financial ruin as any other form of betting or gambling.
Though really it's obvious isn't it? |
|
By:
Don't you have to provide evidence of funds to spread bet.
Fairly sure you do because the liability can be massive. |
|
By:
Same would be the case to options trade.
If you are just buying stocks with your own money and it clears into your brokerage account maybe not. |
|
By:
If the bookies were serious about reducing online addiction they would remove slots from their offerings.
Those games appear to be designed with addiction in mind with catchy music, flashing lights and near misses all the time to keep people thinking they are so close to winning. |
|
By:
Frog - basically been the same as gambling from all I know.
You may have to give some statement of earnings/funds, but not usually proof requested (as far as I know). In both spread betting and stocks trading, positions can often escalate way beyond the original liability - many people have been ruined doing it, and not just the high profile cases. |
|
By:
I've spread bet in past - was once asked what I earned, never asked to prove it though.
|
|
By:
Whole thing is very strange. 60 plus UK online bookies so at £100 a month someone could still lose £6k a month. Thats before they go and play on the FOBTs in one of the thousands of shops in the country. And its before they play with an offshore book.
If someone is a gambling adict they will find a way to feed their addiction. This seems to be more about bookies get their hands one our data than anything else. |
|
By:
When is the actual White Paper going to be out?
People have been saying 'this week' for the last few months. |