Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
13 Jul 22
15:25
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Nov 00
Industry shares resilient amid report of white paper details
13th July 2022 | By Daniel O'Boyle
Industry share prices rebounded from an initial dip following a report that the new Gambling Act white paper will include a £125 monthly soft cap on affordability - with harder checks for players losing £2,000 in three months.
Industry commentators Earnings + More reported a number of details this morning related to the content of the Gambling Act White Paper.
Industry sources confirmed to iGB it matched up with their understanding of the document.
Perhaps the most significant detail in the report was detail of the affordability checks that operators may be required to perform. Players would be allowed to have a net loss of up to £125 per month or £500 per year before “passive” checks – to see if players have obvious signs of financial difficulties such as county court judgements – kick in.
Those who lose more than £1,000 in 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days will face “more detailed” checks.
New accounts will face lower thresholds.
Sources raised questions, however, of what the differences between the two levels of checks will mean in practice, and whether the performance of checks would have an impact on customer credit scores.
Elsewhere, further details of the previously reported cap on slot stakes were revealed. These will take the form of “smart stake limits”, with customers initially subject to a cap between £2 and £5, but those who have gone through affordability checks able to stake up to a figure between £10 and £25.
Other products, including other online casino games, will not have stakes capped.
Online VIP schemes will also be banned. Free bets – contrary to prior reports – would not be completely banned, but may not be “targeted” based on spend.
13th July 2022 | By Daniel O'Boyle
Industry share prices rebounded from an initial dip following a report that the new Gambling Act white paper will include a £125 monthly soft cap on affordability - with harder checks for players losing £2,000 in three months.
Industry commentators Earnings + More reported a number of details this morning related to the content of the Gambling Act White Paper.
Industry sources confirmed to iGB it matched up with their understanding of the document.
Perhaps the most significant detail in the report was detail of the affordability checks that operators may be required to perform. Players would be allowed to have a net loss of up to £125 per month or £500 per year before “passive” checks – to see if players have obvious signs of financial difficulties such as county court judgements – kick in.
Those who lose more than £1,000 in 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days will face “more detailed” checks.
New accounts will face lower thresholds.
Sources raised questions, however, of what the differences between the two levels of checks will mean in practice, and whether the performance of checks would have an impact on customer credit scores.
Elsewhere, further details of the previously reported cap on slot stakes were revealed. These will take the form of “smart stake limits”, with customers initially subject to a cap between £2 and £5, but those who have gone through affordability checks able to stake up to a figure between £10 and £25.
Other products, including other online casino games, will not have stakes capped.
Online VIP schemes will also be banned. Free bets – contrary to prior reports – would not be completely banned, but may not be “targeted” based on spend.
Show More
Hopefully this just about closes they debate what they are looking for...its solid old fashioned income
This is the key takeaway from Swad's experience (and thank you to him for going through all rubbish with Customer Services on our behalf to find it out). If you're a full-time pro without official income who gets caught in the dragnet, don't even think about sending documents to Customer Services. At best you'll get nowhere; at worst you'll convince them that you do indeed have official income, and you'll be discussing the matter further with the Inland Revenue.
This is the key takeaway from Swad's experience (and thank you to him for going through all rubbish with Customer Services on our behalf to find it out). If you're a full-time pro without official income who gets caught in the dragnet, don't even think about sending documents to Customer Services. At best you'll get nowhere; at worst you'll convince them that you do indeed have official income, and you'll be discussing the matter further with the Inland Revenue.
@ItsMeSwaddle
"the clear focus should be on idiots playing/spinning buying into games of chance Casino/Virtual/Bingo bla bla but ofc it isnt, that is where they make their funds, maybe thats not true, I dont know"
Depends on the operator. I just had a quick google for 2022 interim results - 888 (who now own WH) make the vast majority of their revenue from gaming rather than sports betting. Flutter (BF/PP/SBG etc) make two-thirds or so from sports and a third from gaming.
"the clear focus should be on idiots playing/spinning buying into games of chance Casino/Virtual/Bingo bla bla but ofc it isnt, that is where they make their funds, maybe thats not true, I dont know"
Depends on the operator. I just had a quick google for 2022 interim results - 888 (who now own WH) make the vast majority of their revenue from gaming rather than sports betting. Flutter (BF/PP/SBG etc) make two-thirds or so from sports and a third from gaming.
screaming
This has been done to death. The In Rev have no angle under the present law regarding gambling winnings, whether its your sole income and you never lose or just 1 big win, it's still not a profession.
In swad's case there is a grey area where he clearly has made it difficult for bf to make a decision. If he was winning a bit more frequently he might have had some kind of lieniency who knows?
This has been done to death. The In Rev have no angle under the present law regarding gambling winnings, whether its your sole income and you never lose or just 1 big win, it's still not a profession.
In swad's case there is a grey area where he clearly has made it difficult for bf to make a decision. If he was winning a bit more frequently he might have had some kind of lieniency who knows?
*You dont pay Income Tax on capital, you pay Capital Gains...but betting isnt buying an asset that raises or lowers in value, so theres no tax.
Dusty, I know all that. So does the Revenue. The nightmare is the Revenue having a go anyway, just to join in the anti-gambling fun.
But I'm not really talking about taxation of punting profits here. I'm talking about revealing your general finances to a state-backed audit, and that audit deciding that your finances do count as income. That what you'd always known were gambling winnings and no concern of the Revenue suddenly becomes unaccounted for income.
If you really are a full-time pro, then you really, really don't want to do anything to rock the boat with the Revenue. The fact that you're in the right doesn't matter one bit. You simply don't want that battle.
Just quietly pack things up and slip away to the racecourse, where you can bet in cash. We'll all be ending up there anyway at this rate. Who's going to be left to win money off on here?
But I'm not really talking about taxation of punting profits here. I'm talking about revealing your general finances to a state-backed audit, and that audit deciding that your finances do count as income. That what you'd always known were gambling winnings and no concern of the Revenue suddenly becomes unaccounted for income.
If you really are a full-time pro, then you really, really don't want to do anything to rock the boat with the Revenue. The fact that you're in the right doesn't matter one bit. You simply don't want that battle.
Just quietly pack things up and slip away to the racecourse, where you can bet in cash. We'll all be ending up there anyway at this rate. Who's going to be left to win money off on here?
My sis has turned £750 into £11k at the Tote and now they are asking for all sorts
Email says it's a legal requirement for wage slips assets etc
IS IT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT? or just the tote t&cs?
TIA
Email says it's a legal requirement for wage slips assets etc
IS IT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT? or just the tote t&cs?
TIA
The IR wont, the council might try it on under certain circumstances but a letter from a solicitor will warn them off.
And they've limited her to loss limit of £500 until proof is given
She's well up!
Safeguarding the losers my @ss
She's well up!
Safeguarding the losers my @ss
All bf accounts are available if theres an audit, let them wade through the fine print if they wish, the major figures are easily determined and passed.
J-c-m, I've recently had dialogue with the tote as well.
The put a block on my monthly deposits and said I had overshot my limit.
So I say what limit is this then as I'm not aware of any. It was unlimited but changed to £1500 which I exceeded with Glorious Goodwood on.
Then I'm refusing to talk via email and I want to speak to the decision maker who is looking at my case. Which, fair play, they acted promptly and I'm talking to the right person now who I have to say was very knowledgeable and had a no nonsense approach which suited me just fine.
Just to say that since I opened a tote+ account, whenever that was, it's in front albeit not by too much.
On requesting my bank account statements I said I'm going to stop you there, I'm simply refusing to give you anything, you can patently see for yourself how this account has been managed by me. It's pretty much solely for placepots and occasionally win singles for shrapnel and it has zero peaks and troughs and is in profit so I see no need whatsoever to provide any documents whatsoever and the lady was understanding and perfectly reasonable at that explanation.
My closing gambit was, that if you do not reinstate my original no limit deposit all that's going to happen is that my businesses will have to go via other firms and not direct into the tote+ pool so how exactly is that going to help anyone?
In fact, as soon as this conversation is over I'm going to deposit with Hills to do a couple of placepots for later, that's how ridiculous this whole episode is.
After a couple of hours the tote woman called me back and said her decision is 'no limit' and apologised for any inconvenience.
The put a block on my monthly deposits and said I had overshot my limit.
So I say what limit is this then as I'm not aware of any. It was unlimited but changed to £1500 which I exceeded with Glorious Goodwood on.
Then I'm refusing to talk via email and I want to speak to the decision maker who is looking at my case. Which, fair play, they acted promptly and I'm talking to the right person now who I have to say was very knowledgeable and had a no nonsense approach which suited me just fine.
Just to say that since I opened a tote+ account, whenever that was, it's in front albeit not by too much.
On requesting my bank account statements I said I'm going to stop you there, I'm simply refusing to give you anything, you can patently see for yourself how this account has been managed by me. It's pretty much solely for placepots and occasionally win singles for shrapnel and it has zero peaks and troughs and is in profit so I see no need whatsoever to provide any documents whatsoever and the lady was understanding and perfectly reasonable at that explanation.
My closing gambit was, that if you do not reinstate my original no limit deposit all that's going to happen is that my businesses will have to go via other firms and not direct into the tote+ pool so how exactly is that going to help anyone?
In fact, as soon as this conversation is over I'm going to deposit with Hills to do a couple of placepots for later, that's how ridiculous this whole episode is.
After a couple of hours the tote woman called me back and said her decision is 'no limit' and apologised for any inconvenience.
Thanks Slippy, your dogmatic approach seems to have swayed the Tote
This implies that there is no legal requirement for all the financial info, it is just a Tote requirement.
This implies that there is no legal requirement for all the financial info, it is just a Tote requirement.
I recently took some profit from my IG account, and although having used the bank to initially deposit funds I was told I might be required to send screenshots of address and logo of bank and name on account and statements etc.
I waited and it cleared without, but shows the depth of this information collection that is across the board.
Banks have ways of validation without you doing anything given the way instiutions now exachange info on everyone.
I waited and it cleared without, but shows the depth of this information collection that is across the board.
Banks have ways of validation without you doing anything given the way instiutions now exachange info on everyone.
I have provable employment income, so wouldn't mind proving my earnings with wage slips that way. But, I would not permit requests to see my bank statements. That is a different issue of privacy for certain, knowing exactly everything and how I spend my money during my wider life.
Though I would have thought sending a payslip as proof of income would surely be enough?
Though I would have thought sending a payslip as proof of income would surely be enough?
Aug 24, 2022 -- 6:40PM, The Management wrote:
Agreed - the mechanism sits with the bookmakers. They know exactly who the problem gamblers/addicts are, so it would be very simple for them to just stop them (and only them) from playing!Unfortunately, they have built their whole new business around a model that involves profiling and identifying those very people and then exploiting them to the full - so it's a conundrum isn't it!
Exactly. Their business model is really simple. They are not a service. They are revenue generating business off losers. The more losers the more revenue. The more the losers lose the more revenue. Yet its all distracted by Rainbow flags, diversity in the boardroom, 'gaming' 'entertainment' in their corporate statements - charity donations, people and PR dedicated to show how responsible they are - look at the clowns at Unibet who say they will have 0% revenue from irresponsible gambling in the next 2 years. Nobody challenges these ridiculous statements. Its now not called gambling. Its Gaming, or Entertainment. Internal marketing teams trying to extract more revenue via promotions to losers. Cross sell to Casino. Honestly we could take down these companies so easily in a debate. But they never open themselves up for debate because they know this. Its just one way statements and few gravy trainers in the RP who ever debate it. I dont have a problem with it btw, but its like saying that the government care about you. No they don't. They care about their own power and existence, money (collecting taxes) and their own jobs. People i find are so delusional about life, people, governments and companies. As a business what do people think is discussed at the boardroom about Affordability checks? Option 1. This is great step to protect our customers, and we need to really take this opportunity to wrong what people/companies in the past have done wrong, reduce profits, reduce harm and stop all forms of overspend. Option 2. This a nightmare its going to hit our profits hard, and we need to mitigate it by getting as much good PR as we can, and find all ways to legally work around the limits with loopholes, and using it for our advantage (e.g stopping winners as well) and extend our reach to markets where we dont have to deal with this as well.
The politicians used headlines like ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’ to highlight a fraction of idiots who refused to help themselves and actually thought they could win on them, then when the public was sufficiently coaxed into the narrative applied affordability measures to ALL FORMS OF GAMBLING.
People who think protecting the minority from themselves was good value have royally had their pants pulled down.
As for the fact profit comes from losers….look at anything at that’s the source of it. Wages are the profiting from work applied by others, Shareholder Value Maximisation is economic speak for ‘look after those with wealth and shaft the poor in the process’.
They seem to be ok though.
People who think protecting the minority from themselves was good value have royally had their pants pulled down.
As for the fact profit comes from losers….look at anything at that’s the source of it. Wages are the profiting from work applied by others, Shareholder Value Maximisation is economic speak for ‘look after those with wealth and shaft the poor in the process’.
They seem to be ok though.
Karl Marx said ‘all profit derives from child labour…’
"look at the clowns at Unibet who say they will have 0% revenue from irresponsible gambling in the next 2 years."
It is laughably ridiculous. Gambling is irresponsible, period. At least it is for those who have no hope of winning If the powers that be have determined that "affordability" is losing £100 a month and energy prices are rising by £200 a month, then £100 a month is no longer affordable. Using that logic, the economy grinds to a halt and we might as all commit mass euthanasia. If we all act responsibly we end up with an infrastructure like Cuba. Spending millions of hours determining whether someones spending is responsible. It's as daft as it gets
It is laughably ridiculous. Gambling is irresponsible, period. At least it is for those who have no hope of winning If the powers that be have determined that "affordability" is losing £100 a month and energy prices are rising by £200 a month, then £100 a month is no longer affordable. Using that logic, the economy grinds to a halt and we might as all commit mass euthanasia. If we all act responsibly we end up with an infrastructure like Cuba. Spending millions of hours determining whether someones spending is responsible. It's as daft as it gets
Betfair exchange is person v person
No comparison to the tote
Many make their living on ere.
Nobody needs the tote
No comparison to the tote
Many make their living on ere.
Nobody needs the tote
Does anyone know the answer to this question:
When they ask for payslips, do they require originals or will scans or photocopies be acceptable? Also, how much does the latest version of photoshop cost?
Many thanks.
When they ask for payslips, do they require originals or will scans or photocopies be acceptable? Also, how much does the latest version of photoshop cost?
Many thanks.
Yep.
Take home 36k allows 360quid someone said
Need prime minister slip and that still not enough
Take home 36k allows 360quid someone said
Need prime minister slip and that still not enough
Only betting 1% of your income isn't betting, but just a boring leisure activity like doing the crossword. What sort of life do these do-gooders lead? A pretty boring one from the look of it.
Catering for minorities to the detriment of the majority is a ruinous attitude towards business.
Where the fook did these people get the temerity to decide what is "best" for us?
I neither respect them nor care about their world view.
Where the fook did these people get the temerity to decide what is "best" for us?
I neither respect them nor care about their world view.
1% of your yearly Sal a month.
But yep 12% of your salary if you do it in.
Might not even be true.
But yep 12% of your salary if you do it in.
Might not even be true.
If only there was a way to identify "problem gamblers" and just intervene there, without impacting upon anybody/everybody else.
It's such a shame that the online bookmakers don't have a record of such things!
The absence of such records must also make their day to day operations so difficult. Just closing and restricting accounts at total random. Sending cross-selling marketing (free spins) at random, inviting people to VIP events (hospitality) at random, etc, etc.
If only they had kept some records and categorised their customers accordingly.
It's such a shame that the online bookmakers don't have a record of such things!
The absence of such records must also make their day to day operations so difficult. Just closing and restricting accounts at total random. Sending cross-selling marketing (free spins) at random, inviting people to VIP events (hospitality) at random, etc, etc.
If only they had kept some records and categorised their customers accordingly.
Nobody knows who the "problem gamblers" are, so the online bookmakers (in the absence of having kept any customer records) just have to put everybody through this process!
And yet everybody on here is still so blind that they are blaming "do-gooders"
And yet everybody on here is still so blind that they are blaming "do-gooders"
I suppose at least their lack of customer records would explain why they keep getting fined for sending "free spins" to people that have already self-excluded! 
At any point a 'target' can force those bookies to desist, if they dont they get fined heavily.
But apparently those spinning on these products are too daft to realise there is only one winner and refuse to get the help thats funded by the bookies.
Still doesnt explain why MPs used online slots as a vehicle to create a narrative only to then come up with AC that effects all forms of betting....almost like they are disingenuous isnt it?
But apparently those spinning on these products are too daft to realise there is only one winner and refuse to get the help thats funded by the bookies.
Still doesnt explain why MPs used online slots as a vehicle to create a narrative only to then come up with AC that effects all forms of betting....almost like they are disingenuous isnt it?
dusty - If the online bookmakers don't have a record of who the "problem gamblers" are () - what else can the MP's do?
If only those online bookmakers were more business focussed and organised - and had kept some records!
) - what else can the MP's do? If only those online bookmakers were more business focussed and organised - and had kept some records!
Well if Betfair are having trouble identifying "problem gamblers" they should give me the job of sifting through the data to eliminate those who aren't in remotely in this category: For starters, anyone who has ever paid Premium Charge should be exempt from Affordability Checks. Anyone who has been on here for 10 years and not suddenly started increasing their depositing rate should also be exempt. That should narrow it down a bit.
TM
They could have done what they implied - address the problem of 'problem gambling' of online slots that they argued was the mainstay of the problem, instead of using it to gain support before dishing out something totally different.
They could have done what they implied - address the problem of 'problem gambling' of online slots that they argued was the mainstay of the problem, instead of using it to gain support before dishing out something totally different.
Marksman - are you aware of anybody currently paying PC that has been subjected to an Affordability Check?
Rico - said he was - but got it waived pretty quickly - not aware of anybody else, are you?
No doubt they are hopelessly incompetent and have caused some accidental collateral damage - but from all the posters so far involved - they all have in common that they were losing and therefore depositing. So while I think that what is happening is undoubtedly a panic driven bodge job - you can't really argue that those aren't the correct triggers (losing/depositing) imo.
Rico - said he was - but got it waived pretty quickly - not aware of anybody else, are you?
No doubt they are hopelessly incompetent and have caused some accidental collateral damage - but from all the posters so far involved - they all have in common that they were losing and therefore depositing. So while I think that what is happening is undoubtedly a panic driven bodge job - you can't really argue that those aren't the correct triggers (losing/depositing) imo.
Its never a phrase I have used before...but infact 'dogwhistle' fits perfectly what MPs did here.
Dusty - again - you can't blame the MP's for their ignorance of a complex subject.
If only there was somebody else involved that was clever and understood the issue of "problem gambling" thoroughly. Maybe somebody that had data that showed "problem gamblers" only account for about 10% of the problem and the other 90% are "problem gamers".
If only such data existed and could be used to address the real problem!
If only there was somebody else involved that was clever and understood the issue of "problem gambling" thoroughly. Maybe somebody that had data that showed "problem gamblers" only account for about 10% of the problem and the other 90% are "problem gamers".
If only such data existed and could be used to address the real problem!
Management, I did actually pay some Premium Charge a long time ago, and it is true that I have not been subjected to any Affordability Checks. But I believe that this is due to not making any deposits recently (because I am scared of the checks).
I was ... Had to email Peter Jackson to get it sorted. I now apparently have a £5k deposit limit. Not sure whether that's a day, a week, or a month. I can definitely deposit £5k in a day, but whether I can deposit £5k the following week I really don't know.
You've been sucked into blaming "do-gooders" when the real culprits (and the reason this is playing out the way it is) are the online bookmakers.
Gaming is so lucrative that they are happy to gamble their old business model (gambling/bookmaking) in order to protect at all costs their much more lucrative new business (i.e. gaming).
If you can't see this you are blind. Twenty years of breaking the law (the existing 2005 gambling act) have brought this about and the gamble (that I describe above) is why it is playing out this way, rather than just a simple targeted intervention.
Gaming is so lucrative that they are happy to gamble their old business model (gambling/bookmaking) in order to protect at all costs their much more lucrative new business (i.e. gaming).
If you can't see this you are blind. Twenty years of breaking the law (the existing 2005 gambling act) have brought this about and the gamble (that I describe above) is why it is playing out this way, rather than just a simple targeted intervention.
Thanks for info CB29
Ditto Marksman. Can I ask though, was that just when they incompetently fecked up the initial delivery of PC? i.e. they got it horribly wrong initially and it took them about a year to rectify it.
Ditto Marksman. Can I ask though, was that just when they incompetently fecked up the initial delivery of PC? i.e. they got it horribly wrong initially and it took them about a year to rectify it.
But even in your imaginary world TM you would still have the problem of a government body controlling the data that a private company holds.
Now Im having the argument that some areas of the economy need nationalisation for energy security...but not private enterprise.
This is the realm governments stay out of, and its fantasy to assume government are going to work within shareholder corps to the effect that you envisoned.
Eitherway, it didnt happen, they blew the dog wistle because it wasnt about helping a tiny fraction unilaterally. It was about ideology and clamping down on public activities, just like smoking was.
Now Im having the argument that some areas of the economy need nationalisation for energy security...but not private enterprise.
This is the realm governments stay out of, and its fantasy to assume government are going to work within shareholder corps to the effect that you envisoned.
Eitherway, it didnt happen, they blew the dog wistle because it wasnt about helping a tiny fraction unilaterally. It was about ideology and clamping down on public activities, just like smoking was.
I don't know what you mean. The PC was taken off me correctly according to their rules. I stopped paying it when I had some substantial losses. Since then I have probably churned a bit on the way back to modest profitability just to make sure that the PC is still quite a way off.
There is nothing imaginary about the 2005 gambling act Dusty - it's real and it exists.
It's also true/real that online bookmakers have been breaking that (existing) law for 20 odd years.
The act requires that they identify "problem gamblers" and intervene - it doesn't suggest they identify them, groom them and take them for everything they have got! It also references affordability, etc.
You might not like it - but that has been the law since 2005 - maybe you should finally actually read it - as that would save a lot of your posts!
It's also true/real that online bookmakers have been breaking that (existing) law for 20 odd years.
The act requires that they identify "problem gamblers" and intervene - it doesn't suggest they identify them, groom them and take them for everything they have got! It also references affordability, etc.
You might not like it - but that has been the law since 2005 - maybe you should finally actually read it - as that would save a lot of your posts!
ok Marksman - no worries.
When they first introduced PC (Bf being Bf) they bodged it! - iirc initially they didn't take "lifetime" into account, so they caught a lot more people in the net initially than they intended. It took them a year (BF being BF) to sort it out! The result would have been a lot of people (that shouldn't have done) paid pc for that period and they would not necessarily actually be long-term or lifetime winners, and could well actully be losers - but would have paid PC for a year or so.
When they first introduced PC (Bf being Bf) they bodged it! - iirc initially they didn't take "lifetime" into account, so they caught a lot more people in the net initially than they intended. It took them a year (BF being BF) to sort it out! The result would have been a lot of people (that shouldn't have done) paid pc for that period and they would not necessarily actually be long-term or lifetime winners, and could well actully be losers - but would have paid PC for a year or so.
Appearntly no MP review was rquired then....the law was already there, the regulator and bookies neither paid attention to it.
So the MPs could have saved them a hell of a lot of time saying telling them to do so, instead of telling everyone who doesnt have a problem how much they are allowed to gamble.
All fanciful Im afraid given bookies offer the facility to stop the targetting and seek out paid for help.
So the MPs could have saved them a hell of a lot of time saying telling them to do so, instead of telling everyone who doesnt have a problem how much they are allowed to gamble.
All fanciful Im afraid given bookies offer the facility to stop the targetting and seek out paid for help.
I didn't realize that, Management. I didn't pay Premium Charge when it was first introduced. It may have been in existence for just over a year when I first paid it.
The point I was making (which I think still stands) is that nobody that (properly) pays PC or currently pays PC has been impacted. The two people (to my knowledge) that have been (CB29 & Rico) have both sorted it (to some extent) when making contact.
So just to reiterate - while it is no doubt a panic stricken bodge job (trying to make up for 20 years of breaching the 2005 act) - they are just targeting losers. i.e. people that deposit.
So just to reiterate - while it is no doubt a panic stricken bodge job (trying to make up for 20 years of breaching the 2005 act) - they are just targeting losers. i.e. people that deposit.
I was ... Had to email Peter Jackson to get it sorted. I now apparently have a £5k deposit limit. Not sure whether that's a day, a week, or a month. I can definitely deposit £5k in a day, but whether I can deposit £5k the following week I really don't know.
That's what happened to me but I needed to top up my account for CL final. 3 x £5K deposits in 3 days having not deposited for months--the phone rang and back down to 100/month.
Didn't actually lose a single penny and have paid well over £50K in PC since last year.
That's what happened to me but I needed to top up my account for CL final. 3 x £5K deposits in 3 days having not deposited for months--the phone rang and back down to 100/month.
Didn't actually lose a single penny and have paid well over £50K in PC since last year.
You can own half of Belgravia but it won't count as much as a wage slip from Mcdonalds.
you can't really argue that those aren't the correct triggers (losing/depositing) imo.
You can if it's just deposits as opposed to net deposits.
You can if it's just deposits as opposed to net deposits.
Indeed duffy - but as I said, it's a panic stricken bodge job.
All the anecdotal evidence (on here) so far indicates it is purely deposits that trigger - and then if other factors (i.e. lifetime profit, net deposits, PC, etc) are brought to their attention, it can be resolved.
Depositing (due to losing) is clearly the trigger that sticks. Obviously the loss of losers will eventually destroy the exchange model - but that's no different than destroying the model themselves by steering/enticing all the new blood and losers towards slots/ casino / live casino/ exchange games/ sportsbook/ bingo/ virtual sports, etc.
All the anecdotal evidence (on here) so far indicates it is purely deposits that trigger - and then if other factors (i.e. lifetime profit, net deposits, PC, etc) are brought to their attention, it can be resolved.
Depositing (due to losing) is clearly the trigger that sticks. Obviously the loss of losers will eventually destroy the exchange model - but that's no different than destroying the model themselves by steering/enticing all the new blood and losers towards slots/ casino / live casino/ exchange games/ sportsbook/ bingo/ virtual sports, etc.
Ofc its different.
Anyone who chose to play any of that crap always had the option to continue using the exchange.
Anyone who chose to play any of that crap always had the option to continue using the exchange.
I don't see the difference dusty,
You steer an addict that loses £1k per month away from the exchange to get him hooked on Exchange Games.
You steer another addict that was losing £1k per month away from the exchange by stopping him from depositing.
The net result for the exchange is minus £1k of mug money in both cases imo.
You steer an addict that loses £1k per month away from the exchange to get him hooked on Exchange Games.
You steer another addict that was losing £1k per month away from the exchange by stopping him from depositing.
The net result for the exchange is minus £1k of mug money in both cases imo.
Because they arnt stopping the act of depositing to games only, so not even considering marginal effect of what constitutes 'problem gambling' all those arguably redirected always still retained the ability to bet on anything.
Now they force AC on all pursuits of gambling so all including plenty who never even played games cant deposit.
Now they force AC on all pursuits of gambling so all including plenty who never even played games cant deposit.
So focussing all of your marketing spend for more than a decade on steering new (and existing) customers away from the exchange and onto more lucrative/addictive products has had no impact on the exchange?
That £1k per month lost to the exchange is somehow different from the £1k per month lost to the exchange when the guy can no longer deposit?
That £1k per month lost to the exchange is somehow different from the £1k per month lost to the exchange when the guy can no longer deposit?
I didnt say that, I said it was different.
It is in truth additional to the lack of investment/direction of the exchange.
I have yet to see any example of how AC will shape for the better BF's position over the exchange. This is what I perceived as also fanciful in those expecting BF to radically improve the exchange out of need...when one of the things I have continually said BF take their lion share of revenue from America now and have alternatives.
It is in truth additional to the lack of investment/direction of the exchange.
I have yet to see any example of how AC will shape for the better BF's position over the exchange. This is what I perceived as also fanciful in those expecting BF to radically improve the exchange out of need...when one of the things I have continually said BF take their lion share of revenue from America now and have alternatives.
Part of the "justification" for pc was that persistent/consistent winners were bad for the "ecosystem" (removing money from it too quickly/efficiently) and that PC would be used/necessary to attract new customers. Do you remember any of that?
It was just before they diverted all their attention towards lucrative new options: slots/ casino / live casino/ exchange games/ sportsbook/ bingo/ virtual sports, etc.
What goes around comes around. If/When the exchange finally goes t1ts-up, it won't be because of do-gooders and lefty-pinkos - it will be because of greed and over fishing.
It was just before they diverted all their attention towards lucrative new options: slots/ casino / live casino/ exchange games/ sportsbook/ bingo/ virtual sports, etc.
What goes around comes around. If/When the exchange finally goes t1ts-up, it won't be because of do-gooders and lefty-pinkos - it will be because of greed and over fishing.
Spoken like a true Champaign socialist no doubt, while gorging on the carcasses still present?
Or are you here just for the forum now, because all I’ve heard from you is criticism of bookies (this place being one of them) and nothing about personal responsibility.
It’s as though victims deserve the world to stop for their individual concerns however little they make up of the greater picture.
This is all about losing not being allowed, nothing about nuance or implied intention. You are either for it or against it.
Arrogant imbecilic losers that resulted in MPs bleeding hearts lighting a fuse under all monetary gambling totally unilaterally to all other forms of money loss.
Losers, being self evident. Imbecilic because even losing they apparently couldn’t see the dangers and arrogant because they were made aware through at the least campaigns to deal with their issues but decided not to.
It’s everyone else’s problem.
Or are you here just for the forum now, because all I’ve heard from you is criticism of bookies (this place being one of them) and nothing about personal responsibility.
It’s as though victims deserve the world to stop for their individual concerns however little they make up of the greater picture.
This is all about losing not being allowed, nothing about nuance or implied intention. You are either for it or against it.
Arrogant imbecilic losers that resulted in MPs bleeding hearts lighting a fuse under all monetary gambling totally unilaterally to all other forms of money loss.
Losers, being self evident. Imbecilic because even losing they apparently couldn’t see the dangers and arrogant because they were made aware through at the least campaigns to deal with their issues but decided not to.
It’s everyone else’s problem.
The problem is just like many other social problems, that get 'reacted' to eventually.
Just compare to something like sexism or racism for example - those used to be a real social problem, but the response becomes just as unbearable eventually (as it is in modern times in this country)!
It becomes an over-responsive version of the solution. That is what we are facing in the form of the 'solution' to problem gambling, which was a real social problem (and still is). The solution is over-responsive and a sledgehammer version of what it should really be.
Seems the way modern society now deals with any wide issues, very sadly, and wrongly.
Just compare to something like sexism or racism for example - those used to be a real social problem, but the response becomes just as unbearable eventually (as it is in modern times in this country)!
It becomes an over-responsive version of the solution. That is what we are facing in the form of the 'solution' to problem gambling, which was a real social problem (and still is). The solution is over-responsive and a sledgehammer version of what it should really be.
Seems the way modern society now deals with any wide issues, very sadly, and wrongly.
Dusty, I am probably about as big a fan as you are of the "victims" that blame all of their woes on somebody else.
But it's actually a pretty accurate description in this scenario. This is the usual parlance - the party that has (repeatedly) broken the law, they get known as the perpetrator. The party that has been wronged by them - they get known as the victim.
The dictionary backs this up:
Perpertrator: noun: a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act.
Victim: noun: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. A person who is tricked or duped.
You still haven't bothered to read that 2005 Gambling Act have you?
But it's actually a pretty accurate description in this scenario. This is the usual parlance - the party that has (repeatedly) broken the law, they get known as the perpetrator. The party that has been wronged by them - they get known as the victim.
The dictionary backs this up:
Perpertrator: noun: a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act.
Victim: noun: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. A person who is tricked or duped.
You still haven't bothered to read that 2005 Gambling Act have you?
The right to lose a large sum of money gambling is a basic human right. Like freedom of speech. It is called self determination. This country was built on people taking risks, as an Empire was built. Some lost everything, others became immensely rich (or became viceroy of India, even). This is what the human spirit is all about. If the House of Commons (lefties and tories) had their way, they would turn the population of this country to a bunch of pusssies. And Betfair are Pusssies for going along with this simply out of the fear of getting a slap on the wrist.
I'm all for free enterprise and entrepreneurs - but I think they have to obey the law.
Expecting people/business to obey the law, doesn't make you a communist imo.
Expecting people/business to obey the law, doesn't make you a communist imo.
I have read sufficient amounts of the Gambling Act over the years for what good it was worth.
It certainly hasn’t done you any good, you are still attempting to avoid saying that individuals have to be responsible for their own actions, or define whether the attack on losing unilaterally within gambling is fair game response.
If it is who do you win off on here?
You are just a mouthpiece for the pathetic likes of those MPs who simply wanted to cull gambling, non of them will be inconvenienced by it’s loss.
And plenty was In place and funded by the bookmaking industry, you paint a picture that all they did was take everyone’s money.
Stopping people losing won’t just close this exchange it will make it impossible for future exchanges, it will make gambling as an entity redundant and the bookies who you seem to hate so much for you arrogant friends ‘illnesses’ will just go to pastures new.
It certainly hasn’t done you any good, you are still attempting to avoid saying that individuals have to be responsible for their own actions, or define whether the attack on losing unilaterally within gambling is fair game response.
If it is who do you win off on here?
You are just a mouthpiece for the pathetic likes of those MPs who simply wanted to cull gambling, non of them will be inconvenienced by it’s loss.
And plenty was In place and funded by the bookmaking industry, you paint a picture that all they did was take everyone’s money.
Stopping people losing won’t just close this exchange it will make it impossible for future exchanges, it will make gambling as an entity redundant and the bookies who you seem to hate so much for you arrogant friends ‘illnesses’ will just go to pastures new.
As you say the law, they did abide by the law showing sufficient amounts of advertising space for help, giving the options to self restrict etc (where they failed they got fined, what’s the problem?
And what does the 2005 Gambling Act define as ‘vulnerable’ or problematic?
And what does the 2005 Gambling Act define as ‘vulnerable’ or problematic?
.Marksman. • August 28, 2022 7:43 PM BST
The right to lose a large sum of money gambling is a basic human right.
Not only that, it is codified in the Human Rights Act 1998
Protection of property
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
Possessions in this case includes savings. The government, including quangos eg UKGC cannot mandate that people should be restricted in how they spend their savings, so if, as has been reported in this thread, companies are ignoring accumulated capital when considering UKGC "affordability", then the affected persons should point out that it would be illegal for the UKGC to publish a licence term that instructed licencees to restrict how people spent their accumulated capital.
The right to lose a large sum of money gambling is a basic human right.
Not only that, it is codified in the Human Rights Act 1998
Protection of property
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
Possessions in this case includes savings. The government, including quangos eg UKGC cannot mandate that people should be restricted in how they spend their savings, so if, as has been reported in this thread, companies are ignoring accumulated capital when considering UKGC "affordability", then the affected persons should point out that it would be illegal for the UKGC to publish a licence term that instructed licencees to restrict how people spent their accumulated capital.
That might explain the lack of urgency in publishing the official Gambling Commission position on all of this. Better just to continually leak rumours which encourage bookmakers to take action. That way the prohibitionists get what they want without the annoyance of a legal challenge.
Will there be ACs for business people paying huge sums into savings 'plans' for example (i.e. those that save tax for example)?
Or ACs for people investing in a new business??
The concept is fundamentally flawed - to limit people in their own choice and actions financially. I really believe that should be tested in court, if it finally becomes law.
Or ACs for people investing in a new business??
The concept is fundamentally flawed - to limit people in their own choice and actions financially. I really believe that should be tested in court, if it finally becomes law.
If a book doesn't want you it doesn't have to justify it though, it can just say that we don't want you so tough.
No court in the world could force an operator to take a bet from you if it didn't want to.
.
No court in the world could force an operator to take a bet from you if it didn't want to.
.
Indeed. Similarly supermarkets. If your custom is not appreciated or wanted you'll need to spend your dosh elsewhere.
However, I think AC is solely for betting with scumbag bookies because of their sharp practices and irresponsibility toward the vulnerable of the society inflicted with a gambling addiction esp fobt; horseracing is the unfortunate victim courtesy of fobt, and bookies addiction to restriction and closure of recreational punters accounts.
However, I think AC is solely for betting with scumbag bookies because of their sharp practices and irresponsibility toward the vulnerable of the society inflicted with a gambling addiction esp fobt; horseracing is the unfortunate victim courtesy of fobt, and bookies addiction to restriction and closure of recreational punters accounts.
screaming from beneaththewaves
I might be seeing you on the course sooner than later if these checks kick in and don't forget that cup of tea you promised me.
I might be seeing you on the course sooner than later if these checks kick in and don't forget that cup of tea you promised me.
I wonder what so many of us will do with our time, if we are indeed eventually limited out of the practice...?
Will certainly be a culture shock for many here, who are hardcore in our activity for many years of our lives up to this point. Maybe people like Swad who have said they already lost this route of activity will be best to discuss that...
Will certainly be a culture shock for many here, who are hardcore in our activity for many years of our lives up to this point. Maybe people like Swad who have said they already lost this route of activity will be best to discuss that...
I seem to remember a similar joke response I read elsewhere once: 'May even have to talk to the wife!'
The USA is opening up it's gambling and exchanges will be a definite.
Land is cheap over there. Housing too (compared to here)
Amazing how prohibition here has coincided with liberation there.
Land is cheap over there. Housing too (compared to here)
Amazing how prohibition here has coincided with liberation there.
I could so easily adjust to betting in American Exchanges. But we won't be allowed near it.
Have a job, there arnt any are there?
The courses charged too much and made the commission too high.
Either way USA wont admit residents on a 'professional gambling' visa
The courses charged too much and made the commission too high.
Either way USA wont admit residents on a 'professional gambling' visa
Aug 29, 2022 -- 2:01AM, duffy wrote:
If a book doesn't want you it doesn't have to justify it though, it can just say that we don't want you so tough.No court in the world could force an operator to take a bet from you if it didn't want to..
If it is a condition of the licence to bet on certain events then it can be enforced.
In Australia bookmakers have to lay anyone to lose a up to at least a fixed amount on racing.
It does not seem to have done Sportsbet's profits any harm.
When is this white paper from the government actually coming out?
I am starting to think they have not even put pen to paper yet like Boris' oven ready social care plan that never appeared.
I am starting to think they have not even put pen to paper yet like Boris' oven ready social care plan that never appeared.
Is it the case at the moment you can walk up to the t o t e window and have £500 on that will be at least SP return ?
Aug 30, 2022 -- 11:47AM, frog1000 wrote:
When is this white paper from the government actually coming out?I am starting to think they have not even put pen to paper yet like Boris' oven ready social care plan that never appeared.
From white paper to legislation will likely take months
Michelle Donelan is now incharge of the DCMS.
At least Iain Duncan Smith did not get the job.
At least Iain Duncan Smith did not get the job.
While GOVT see and are fed figures to suggest that the books are cleaning house themselves then we won't see the white paper, it'll just be left there like the sword of damacles, unfortunately though the Govt won't be drilling down on the info they are given in order to see just who are being restricted.....slots or sports bettors???
Apparently PM is in favour of people spending their own money as they want and having their own discipline. Let's hope so.
That's all well and good but IMO it will not stop the books carrying on exactly as they have been i.e. culling people that they don't want and using the current climate as the reason to do it....exchange sports out...slots in...only if they are forced to publish the percentage of the "type" of players that are restricted will we see their true motives.
Hurray! A new minister who supported gambling reform eg voted for a massive reduction in fobt stake and an address in the dramatic increase in gambling advertising.
I think I'll like this new minister. It's long overdue a massive cull in the reduction of gambling advertising asap especially mobile and tv, and bill boards. These adverts prey on the vulnerable.
I think I'll like this new minister. It's long overdue a massive cull in the reduction of gambling advertising asap especially mobile and tv, and bill boards. These adverts prey on the vulnerable.
Carolyn Harris now has pink hair and still looks like a pile of 5hit tied up.
Free markets still working very well - but please send more taxpayers money! 
Ladhood S3:E3 ... It's a black comedy for the uninitiated. A must watch episode as it's about gambling, even covers arbitrage.
Marcia the bookies rep approaches the marketing company
"we're thinking about the changing appeal of gambling for men in their 30s. They're growing up, they have different priorities, families to support, and they're saying should I really be spending so much to a pass time that carries a high risk of me losing a devastating amount of money and we're saying ... yes, yes you should .... in a responsible way"
Marcia the bookies rep approaches the marketing company
"we're thinking about the changing appeal of gambling for men in their 30s. They're growing up, they have different priorities, families to support, and they're saying should I really be spending so much to a pass time that carries a high risk of me losing a devastating amount of money and we're saying ... yes, yes you should .... in a responsible way"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0cv5mts/ladhood-series-3-episode-3
Got this mail from Pokerstars, part of Flutter, so sister company to Betfair, shybet, paddy etc
...We’re getting in touch to let you know that as part of our commitment towards safer play, we’ll be introducing a Net Deposit Limit to your account this October.
The introduction of Net Deposit Limits to accounts helps us to protect our players. All your deposits, withdrawals and player to player transfers contribute towards the Net Deposit Limit.
For players 25 and older, a daily £5,000 Net Deposit Limit will come into effect....
I can only think that they anticipate that with inflation etc, the pound will be 100 to the dollar.
...We’re getting in touch to let you know that as part of our commitment towards safer play, we’ll be introducing a Net Deposit Limit to your account this October.
The introduction of Net Deposit Limits to accounts helps us to protect our players. All your deposits, withdrawals and player to player transfers contribute towards the Net Deposit Limit.
For players 25 and older, a daily £5,000 Net Deposit Limit will come into effect....
I can only think that they anticipate that with inflation etc, the pound will be 100 to the dollar.
£5000/day--that's a result Dave.
I've just come off easily the worst losing run in my 20+ years on Betfair.
But no phone call or anything.
Depositing seems to be the thing that triggers a reaction.
I've just come off easily the worst losing run in my 20+ years on Betfair.
But no phone call or anything.
Depositing seems to be the thing that triggers a reaction.
They need to get the white paper done
These cabinets masquerading as new governments get worse overtime, culminating with another Labour shut out, and I can’t see gambling getting anything in the new, old, new woke Labour movement.
These cabinets masquerading as new governments get worse overtime, culminating with another Labour shut out, and I can’t see gambling getting anything in the new, old, new woke Labour movement.
It is deposits that triggers them
But withdrawing triggers the “we need extra documentation” bile, and you now meed to to provide that with a bank statement as well which is just out of this world in your face s****y
Dont dare withdraw your money. its utterly disgusting. If you dont provide the bank statement (from a reliable source) they refuse to pay you out. I mean what? You now need to privide them proof of funds to withdraw back into your account...
But withdrawing triggers the “we need extra documentation” bile, and you now meed to to provide that with a bank statement as well which is just out of this world in your face s****y
Dont dare withdraw your money. its utterly disgusting. If you dont provide the bank statement (from a reliable source) they refuse to pay you out. I mean what? You now need to privide them proof of funds to withdraw back into your account...
If the aim is to get you back in the 'shop' , it is working with me.
I hadn't been in for years , but am quite often in now .....and don't get asked any questions.
I cannot put any kind of horse racing perm/ acca with Billy online because of my little win in November ......out of devilment I put the same kind of bet in their shop.....simply because I can.
I hadn't been in for years , but am quite often in now .....and don't get asked any questions.
I cannot put any kind of horse racing perm/ acca with Billy online because of my little win in November ......out of devilment I put the same kind of bet in their shop.....simply because I can.
Exchange is peer to peer (apparently) so the only think we need to privide is proof of age and that is literally it ffs
How they get away with holding you to ransom for bank statements is fooking idiocy and lunacy
Its unbelivable ffs
How they get away with holding you to ransom for bank statements is fooking idiocy and lunacy
Its unbelivable ffs
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539