Sadly, due to "Party politics", your MP will be a drone that has a fixed view about everything from which he can never deviate, regardless of the facts or the application of common sense.

The biggest mystery still remains - how come all these "pro-gamblers" need to keep depositing?

There were other factors, but it was the main factor for me in not using an agent to open another Smarkets account

This issue transcends party politics, and M.P.'s know it.  What many of them didn;t know was the lack of knowledge in the ranks of the proponents of this nonsense between gambling and petty gaming.  They do now and getting in touch with yours will be of value.
Otherwise you do nothing and just suck it up.  Your choice.

If they are teeling how much you are entitled to lose, they are saying collectively how much people can win.
It affects everyone.

"Also I don't think Betfair close winning accounts CB29 -"

I can't verify it, but I've heard they have in some circumstances.  Also doesn't mean they won't in the future.

"Online bookmakers closing winning accounts is surely a separate issue that has been on-going for more than 20 years."

You asked why pro gamblers need to deposit.  Aside from having losing runs, using agents is very much linked to ACs.  Much less appealing using an agent if they can't bet much without them having intrusive checks themselves.

CB29 - do you know of anybody that pays PC being impacted by affordability checks?

To my limited knowledge - the few that have been affected have happened in error and been sorted out PDQ. To my knowledge, everybody that has been impacted is a loser.

Of course I have an issue with that - but if you are going to (on moral grounds or grounds of the "cost to society") restrict peoples freedoms - it makes much more sense to me, to close/restrict losing accounts than it does winning ones! - Like I said, they (online slot factorys masquerading as bookmakers) shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

Also I don't think Betfair close winning accounts CB29 -"

I can't verify it, but I've heard they have in some circumstances.  Also doesn't mean they won't in the future



Why would betfair close a winning account assuming we are talking about exchange customers and not the bookmaking nonsense Sportsbook.

CB29 - do you know of anybody that pays PC being impacted by affordability checks?

Yes. Me!!

I assume he pays PC.  He's certainly a pro who bets in large size

could be trap bets, betting after the result was known, scalping in some form etc

The anti-gambling lobby are against people gambling who can become a liability to society of to themselves. Whether they become such as a result of playing games of pure chance or of ones which have a degree of skill or knowledge , will almost certainly not weigh in the balance to them. That defence may intellectually have  substance but the degree of skill is highly debatable in any event.

Solutions need to be sought which focus on preventing people who might become liabilities to themselves and society, which do not require personal financial information to be revealed to unknown individuals within bookmakers who will not have the skills or training to make an assessment. In short, it ishhould not the responsibilty  of a seller of services to vet the financial standing of their customers. This responsibility should lie elsewhere.

One simple way would be to borrow approaches from elsewhere, such as licencing. Individuals need to meet age requirements to purchase alcohol or to drive cars or to marry, for example. Perhaps a licencing system might work, whether that be through a basic age entry requirement or in a more sophisticated manner through passing a straightforward test to insure that an understanding of the risks, returns and probabilities of gambling is clearly understood. I'm sure that others may find other, perhaps more feasible methods to find a practical solution  that will satisfy individuals, betting organisation, lobbyists and government/politicians.

It would be ludicrous to arrive at a point where people might be banned if they are regular winners or banned if they are regular losers. That's a business model which would not work, to be sure!

Nothing to do with 'looking out for you '

Just control, utter control

This was instigated by the cross party limp wrists.
In days gone by the government wouldnt have spooked the market with such open threats and just leave them dangling like they have.

The whole argument is invalid. The cross party MPs came on racing shows etc telling lies about how they like horseracing yadda yadda (and have annual 2 quid bets on the National) when what they should actually have done is simply have said this doesnt convern gambling its about slots and that be the end of it....but they didnt, because it isnt.

Its funny because Im re-reading The Art of Legging atm, and the version I have is the 2003 edition.
In the introduction theres an update of the time to 2003 which it refers back to a time of all things equine (the road the chace (chase -fox and hounds) and the turf) and states the road was lost as carriages were replaced and stated that if the 'antis' have their way so will be gone the chace (we now now it was in reflection) that just leaves 'the turf' (horseracing)
Isnt it strange how its now directly threatened by the non distinction between gambling and gaming?
No it isnt, because its all part of the closing down of anything with animals.

Marksman - I'm talking about Affordability Checks when i say (that to my knowledge) the vast majority impacted are losers (identified by the continual need to deposit).

The practice you refer to is equally reprehensible (in the way that it is carried out) but it is usually executed under the guise of Source of Funds and/or Money Laundering.

There does seem to be a lot of confusion over the distinct difference between the types of checks - but that is essentially (imo) because of the unprofessional panic stricken way that the bookmakers are currently instigating all such checks.

So to reiterate the point - to my knowledge, Affordability checks are only impacting losers. Other checks may be impacting all sorts of people, because they haven't got a clue what they are doing!

P.S. The reason that they (the bookmakers) haven't got a clue what they are doing with these checks is that they haven't previously been doing them, despite the fact that the legal requirement to do them has been in place for nearly 20 years!

Hita Lats - hope you are well and Lumpy is still playing!

The lack of Chinese participants must be impacting what was already tumbleweed liquidity! (just kidding).
It's so dismal prior to any of that controversy that I don't really bother anymore - I still take the odd position but sadly in the knowledge that I will probably have to hang on to it until the death.

Had a nice break, ta, apart from that cyclone bomb!

Exactly that Lats. In theory if your initial entry point is correct/value, riding it out should still pay over time. Obviously that's true - but it defeats the object of an exchange and leaves you at the mercy of that devil they call variance! - and i'm too old for that and all of the headaches that come with it!

I believe that there has not been a rigorous analysis of the data on which the anti-gambling lobby's case has been built, and consequently no robust defence has been mounted by the horseracing industry in particular and the gambling community in general.

The key report on which the anti lobby is working to is the "Gambling related harms evidence review of January 2023."

In the first para of the summary this finding is made
Prevalence of at-risk and problem gambling
Based on 2018 HSE data, we estimated that 0.5% of the population reached the threshold to be considered experiencing problem gambling, and this proportion has remained relatively consistent since 2012. We also estimated that 3.8% of the population are classified as gambling at elevated risks, differentiated into low risk and moderate risk gambling. This means they might experience some level of negative consequences due to their gambling.

So, 0.5% of the population at the lower end and 3.8% at the upper end, is the main finding of this review.


Compare this with the latest Alcohol Review which finds
24% of adults in England and Scotland regularly drink over the Chief Medical Officer’s low-risk guidelines [1, 16], and 27% of drinkers in Great Britain binge drink on their heaviest drinking days (over 8 units for men and over 6 units for women)

A further finding follows
Alcohol misuse is the biggest risk factor for death, ill-health and disability among 15-49 year-olds in the UK, and the fifth biggest risk factor across all ages [1


Now, I accept that switching the argument to another topic is not any defence of the original argument i.e gambling abuse, but surely it makes the concern over gambling abusers shrink to a relatively lesser problem than compared with drinking abuse.

Nevertheless, the drinks industry has not had to face calls for financial proof by the customer that they have sufficient means to consume alcohol responsibly.

Rightly so,. Perhaps interventionists should be reminded of the chaotic consequences a century ago when Temperance movements here and in the US became so influential that it led to Prohibition laws in the US with the unintended consequences of stimulating organised crime, illegal drinking clubs and dire economic consequences. I believe that demand for liquor actually increased although I don't have the figures at hand to verify that.

We have been warned that large stakes punters will use illegal bookmaking sources and go off-shore. People will get around these restrictions as they usually do when government tries to interfere with consumer behaviour. It is the small stakes punter who bets for enjoyment and recreational purposes who  will suffer the most.

If the Conservative government gives way to a small group of moralisers, I would say that their chances of recovery in the polls will be minimal. The government needs to act wisely here.

The only reason small stakes, responsible and recreational gamblers are being impacted - is because the bookmakers (who have a profile of every single customer) want them to be impacted!

How many roulette/slots addicts are going to write to their MP iyo?