Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
By Bill Barber, Industry editor
UPDATED 7:46PM, JAN 16 2023
Over recent months punters have contacted the Racing Post in their droves to complain about bookmaker affordability and source-of-funds checks, recounting requests for sensitive financial documents and sharing their anger at being subject to such intrusive checks simply in order to place a bet.
These correspondents have warned they are now being forced to abandon betting accounts and even their passion for betting on racing or other sports. Many have bet for decades, heightening their dismay and bewilderment that they are now being forced to jump through one hoop after another.
Among those frustrations have been complaints that punters' accounts have been frozen while they wait for their cases to be dealt with.
Some form of checks on punters' financial positions are expected to feature among the government's proposals in the government's long-delayed gambling review white paper.
However, in the meantime operators have been introducing their own, often widely differing, affordability checks under pressure from the Gambling Commission, as well as intensifying source-of-funds checks and anti-money laundering measures.
Worryingly for British racing, which depends on the betting industry for much of its income through the levy and media rights, some of those who contacted the Racing Post spoke of giving up their hobby rather than submit their information.
One punter, who wished to be quoted only as 'Stuart', said he was concerned whether with Cheltenham looming there would be a bookmaker willing to take his bets at the meeting.
Stuart said his salary was in six figures in 2020-21 and even after deciding to work less in 2021-22 it had still been more than £80,000.
He added: "So you would think showing bookmakers your P60 and the total you have in your account you use for betting would suffice, but that’s not good enough.
"They want to see every single transaction in and out of that account, which is ridiculous. Why should a bookmaker see payments towards your mortgage [if you have one], your energy provider etc etc?
"Anyway I have a fear this will be my last year punting at my beloved Cheltenham Festival, the way things are going."
Fellow punter Chris Littlewood said he was contacted by the Tote and asked to complete a form asking questions including details of income and monthly outgoings or his account would become inactive.
He added: "Well enough is enough and I just refused to provide the grossly intrusive details they wanted and so I am unable to stake a bet with the Tote app until I do. I'm just a small-time punter who has been betting 40 years but I will go without rather than put up with this intrusion."
Asked for a response, UK Tote Group chief executive Alex Frost said: "Our obligation to look after customers is paramount and we continue to operate within the guidelines set out by the Gambling Commission."
Mervyn Sheppard said bet365 had asked him for details of his finances after ten years with the firm betting £5 singles, £1 Yankees and £2 Trixies.
"Suddenly they want details of my finances," he added. "Ridiculous. I have been betting almost daily for 60 years and always paid bills on time. I know what I can afford to play with and it is not acceptable to be treated as a problem gambler."
Bet365 did not wish to comment when approached by the Racing Post.
Kim Deane said he bet on greyhounds but having had other accounts restricted he was only able to use Betfair, which chose to carry out checks following his retirement.
"They basically said the amount I could deposit in future was based on my income which is low as I took a big lump sum and a small pension," he added.
"I explained I owned my own house and had savings but they didn’t want to know and offered me a pathetic amount which was the average of what I normally staked on one bet.
"I am a responsible gambler and had already in place deposit and loss limits, so I know my limits.
"I refuse to show any bank account details to bookmakers. This is my hobby. I don't drink or smoke. I'm marooned in North Devon so can't go to greyhound tracks, which is my passion in life."
One owner and punter who contacted the Racing Post following an article on the impact of affordability checks in the series 'A Year To Save Racing', warned they could lead to people giving up racehorse ownership.
'Les' said he had held an account with one bookmaker for several decades and was a punter who would stake four-figure sums.
However, he said his account was frozen in December and remains so despite his having responded to requests for personal details including proof of his income, a tax statement, and a passport or driving licence.
Les said he had suffered a five-figure losing run, adding: "That's when they came in with this white paper thing and they've just said well we need more paperwork, utility bills and all sorts so I sent them all. But they have still not come back to unfreeze it."
Last year racehorse owner and punter Simon Prout told the Racing Post affordability checks might lead to owners leaving the sport as having a bet was part of the experience.
It is a sentiment with which Les, who said he has a number of jumps horses in training, agreed. He said: "I definitely think if they carry on like this you are going to see a lot of owners pulling out because it's just not worth the hassle.
"There are people who own horses who like a punt on their horses and if they come out with this white paper they will devastate the thing."
UPDATED 7:46PM, JAN 16 2023
Over recent months punters have contacted the Racing Post in their droves to complain about bookmaker affordability and source-of-funds checks, recounting requests for sensitive financial documents and sharing their anger at being subject to such intrusive checks simply in order to place a bet.
These correspondents have warned they are now being forced to abandon betting accounts and even their passion for betting on racing or other sports. Many have bet for decades, heightening their dismay and bewilderment that they are now being forced to jump through one hoop after another.
Among those frustrations have been complaints that punters' accounts have been frozen while they wait for their cases to be dealt with.
Some form of checks on punters' financial positions are expected to feature among the government's proposals in the government's long-delayed gambling review white paper.
However, in the meantime operators have been introducing their own, often widely differing, affordability checks under pressure from the Gambling Commission, as well as intensifying source-of-funds checks and anti-money laundering measures.
Worryingly for British racing, which depends on the betting industry for much of its income through the levy and media rights, some of those who contacted the Racing Post spoke of giving up their hobby rather than submit their information.
One punter, who wished to be quoted only as 'Stuart', said he was concerned whether with Cheltenham looming there would be a bookmaker willing to take his bets at the meeting.
Stuart said his salary was in six figures in 2020-21 and even after deciding to work less in 2021-22 it had still been more than £80,000.
He added: "So you would think showing bookmakers your P60 and the total you have in your account you use for betting would suffice, but that’s not good enough.
"They want to see every single transaction in and out of that account, which is ridiculous. Why should a bookmaker see payments towards your mortgage [if you have one], your energy provider etc etc?
"Anyway I have a fear this will be my last year punting at my beloved Cheltenham Festival, the way things are going."
Fellow punter Chris Littlewood said he was contacted by the Tote and asked to complete a form asking questions including details of income and monthly outgoings or his account would become inactive.
He added: "Well enough is enough and I just refused to provide the grossly intrusive details they wanted and so I am unable to stake a bet with the Tote app until I do. I'm just a small-time punter who has been betting 40 years but I will go without rather than put up with this intrusion."
Asked for a response, UK Tote Group chief executive Alex Frost said: "Our obligation to look after customers is paramount and we continue to operate within the guidelines set out by the Gambling Commission."
Mervyn Sheppard said bet365 had asked him for details of his finances after ten years with the firm betting £5 singles, £1 Yankees and £2 Trixies.
"Suddenly they want details of my finances," he added. "Ridiculous. I have been betting almost daily for 60 years and always paid bills on time. I know what I can afford to play with and it is not acceptable to be treated as a problem gambler."
Bet365 did not wish to comment when approached by the Racing Post.
Kim Deane said he bet on greyhounds but having had other accounts restricted he was only able to use Betfair, which chose to carry out checks following his retirement.
"They basically said the amount I could deposit in future was based on my income which is low as I took a big lump sum and a small pension," he added.
"I explained I owned my own house and had savings but they didn’t want to know and offered me a pathetic amount which was the average of what I normally staked on one bet.
"I am a responsible gambler and had already in place deposit and loss limits, so I know my limits.
"I refuse to show any bank account details to bookmakers. This is my hobby. I don't drink or smoke. I'm marooned in North Devon so can't go to greyhound tracks, which is my passion in life."
One owner and punter who contacted the Racing Post following an article on the impact of affordability checks in the series 'A Year To Save Racing', warned they could lead to people giving up racehorse ownership.
'Les' said he had held an account with one bookmaker for several decades and was a punter who would stake four-figure sums.
However, he said his account was frozen in December and remains so despite his having responded to requests for personal details including proof of his income, a tax statement, and a passport or driving licence.
Les said he had suffered a five-figure losing run, adding: "That's when they came in with this white paper thing and they've just said well we need more paperwork, utility bills and all sorts so I sent them all. But they have still not come back to unfreeze it."
Last year racehorse owner and punter Simon Prout told the Racing Post affordability checks might lead to owners leaving the sport as having a bet was part of the experience.
It is a sentiment with which Les, who said he has a number of jumps horses in training, agreed. He said: "I definitely think if they carry on like this you are going to see a lot of owners pulling out because it's just not worth the hassle.
"There are people who own horses who like a punt on their horses and if they come out with this white paper they will devastate the thing."
Show More
^ what a fkin berk
Wtf are you drivelling on about now?
The guy who in response to people debating being restricted glibly said words to the effect of ‘then don’t deposit’ all fkin smug.
Everyone will have to deposit sometime fool
Wtf are you drivelling on about now?
The guy who in response to people debating being restricted glibly said words to the effect of ‘then don’t deposit’ all fkin smug.
Everyone will have to deposit sometime fool
If the sole trigger for a chaotic, panic stricken insistence from betfair that you need to undergo an affordability check is depositing - I would have thought that was good advice. You've had plenty notice and a daily reminder in the Racing Post and from fools like you, that the world was about to end.
Advice?
Let them hand out as much as they like, I’ve always said it’s better to be informed, this isn’t about advice it’s about stopping.
I don’t read the RP, I don’t time travel…in fact is there owt you get right?
Let them hand out as much as they like, I’ve always said it’s better to be informed, this isn’t about advice it’s about stopping.
I don’t read the RP, I don’t time travel…in fact is there owt you get right?
Yeah what a fool I am, I’ll use the same things as anyone else and still carry bf’s contrived monkey in the form of PC handicap.
I encourage anyone to come do the same.
I encourage anyone to come do the same.
Fair enough - you are probably just an expert race reader. Well done!
Jan 28, 2023 -- 11:07AM, dustybin wrote:
Your whole premise is based on the justification of controlling those without problems because those with problems won’t control themselves.That’s it in a nutshell, except you continue that any comment to the contrary of those vilifying gambling by coupling it with gaming are led on because ultimately if they arn’t and do actually mean what they say you don’t care because it will ultimately get what the soggy arsed want anyway…a restriction of gambling.Saying all this on a phucking gambling website that has already had boatloads restricted because the proposals were enough to spook the industry as nothing was defined, working groups simply banded figures around and didn’t bother to rule out anything.
dustybin, I wanted to refer to what you said because those with problems won’t control themselves. The Problem is from a physiological and neurological level those in deep addiction of gambling "Can't STOP even though they want to stop". (Without Help)
So those addicted to for example slots can't control themselves, even though it's a choice.
But help does exist they have to ask for it.
The point is how much does everyone else have to pay for their refusal?
The point is how much does everyone else have to pay for their refusal?
It often referred to by others on here I used to like the sniff a bit...
My choice and I didnt expect everyone else to get sanctioned for my decisions
My choice and I didnt expect everyone else to get sanctioned for my decisions
The restauranteur that does £1k of his takings every night at the casino - he just needs to pull himself together?
His wife, kids, the 20 fellas that work for him, his landlord, the VAT man and all his suppliers - are just unlucky that he is so thick/lazy?
His wife, kids, the 20 fellas that work for him, his landlord, the VAT man and all his suppliers - are just unlucky that he is so thick/lazy?
Pretty much summed it up completely there TM.
Or would you rather a society where you can do what you like, spend what you like and have no accountability for those actions. It will be ok, society will pay for their mistakes...
WTF are you on?
A person who sponks the lot and fails to realise they have a problem and address it go double busto
That is life, what shouldnt happen is the casino closed due to all those people who enjoyed the entertainment wernt allowed because daftie couldnt ask for the help.
A person who sponks the lot and fails to realise they have a problem and address it go double busto
That is life, what shouldnt happen is the casino closed due to all those people who enjoyed the entertainment wernt allowed because daftie couldnt ask for the help.
You missed the point - it impacts upon and costs society - whether you like it or not - what if you or one of your family were his landlord, one of his employees or one of his suppliers?
Who is really picking up the bill at the end of the day?
Who is really picking up the bill at the end of the day?
Put all this in perspective.
TM thinks up his proposal, its not a goer, but what is proposed is the fact all gambling thrown in with gaming, and he wont criticise it.
What is proposed is a betting limit and intrusion on pretty much anyone at some point, and still he doesnt criticise it.
Those however who do have a problem with the fact non of his personal axes he wants to grind are proposals either, and anyone who do criticise this mentality are alleged to be dancing to the bookie's fiddle.
The guy is utterly perverse.
You come on here, you lose, you dont get a phucking appeal, you improve or stop by your own volition.
TM thinks up his proposal, its not a goer, but what is proposed is the fact all gambling thrown in with gaming, and he wont criticise it.
What is proposed is a betting limit and intrusion on pretty much anyone at some point, and still he doesnt criticise it.
Those however who do have a problem with the fact non of his personal axes he wants to grind are proposals either, and anyone who do criticise this mentality are alleged to be dancing to the bookie's fiddle.
The guy is utterly perverse.
You come on here, you lose, you dont get a phucking appeal, you improve or stop by your own volition.
You go belly up and another business takes your place.
Thats what happens and life goes on becuase you or your imaginary guy arnt the centre of the universe
Thats not to mention the employees who are employed at the casino or the tax paid on profits
Thats what happens and life goes on becuase you or your imaginary guy arnt the centre of the universe
Thats not to mention the employees who are employed at the casino or the tax paid on profits
Also impacts everybody that eats there once he's reduced to cutting corners on the hygiene and buying his meat from a van in a lay-bye.
WeOnlyTakeBetsOnSlots.com has got all his money - his wife and kids are homeless but still need housing, feeding and clothing, his staff are all unemployed, his suppliers have all gone bust and half the town has got food poisoning. It's all good.
WeOnlyTakeBetsOnSlots.com has got all his money - his wife and kids are homeless but still need housing, feeding and clothing, his staff are all unemployed, his suppliers have all gone bust and half the town has got food poisoning. It's all good.
Is this guy for real?
Ive realised exactly what you are now TM
You are one of those anti capitalists who blame everyone for not getting on in life, what is it called , The Great Restet or sumat?
Always banging on about how capitalism is about to fail any minute.
You will fail before capitalism will be replaced and no cont will ever remember you.
So the casino is smashing it, rinsing mugs for 1000 a night, profits bumper paid to the treasury.
But in TMWorld anything thats a bit risky/dangerous/Not totally sterile will be for the chopping block
But in TMWorld anything thats a bit risky/dangerous/Not totally sterile will be for the chopping block
I've done ok out of capitalism imo - you believe in personal responsibility (when it suits you and when it's for other people) - but you don't believe in corporate responsibility. Seems odd imo.
Nobby goes broke, business premisis becomes a bakery and employers cooks, distribution carriers marketing and provides to office workers
...he buys cheap meat, fails hygiene...christ this TM in cuckoo land
Fails hygiene? - Is that regulated then?
If so, why??
If so, why??
Look at the man
Scurrying around for anything to try and justify the fact he wants bookies punished under any circumstances.
Chip on the shoulder merchant who wont admit his ilk are on a one way trip to close betting down and anyone who gets in the way they attempt to tar and feather....just like the loonacy going on in the wokish gender world.
If you dont fall in line they will scratch yer eyes out until you do.
FO TM I think you are nothing.
Scurrying around for anything to try and justify the fact he wants bookies punished under any circumstances.
Chip on the shoulder merchant who wont admit his ilk are on a one way trip to close betting down and anyone who gets in the way they attempt to tar and feather....just like the loonacy going on in the wokish gender world.
If you dont fall in line they will scratch yer eyes out until you do.
FO TM I think you are nothing.
You can think what you like - but please don't tell me what i am thinking - you are clueless and very angry. I suspect I could buy you five times over, so I'm hardly what you think. Bonjour.
Btw TM you are right I shouldn’t be getting angry but I am at these daft questions attempting to avoid the truth that you are either in favour of the proposed restrictions or against and you are in favour.
To highlight the madness of your restaurant analogy…
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
The restaurant has a rich menu of extravagance, sauces high in sugar and dishes full of carbs.
To balance the logic, given type 2 diabetes is a silent pandemic that kills more than pretty much all other ailments and costs the NHS a fortune, perhaps all customers need a blood test at the door, to check glycemic levels and the menu choices changes based on the result.
That is pretty similar to the gambling argument and could very well be the next thing on the ideological list.
Now nobbies restaurant doesn’t do so well and he doesn’t have 1000 to sponk nightly in the casino
You get what you want, fewer customers gambling, the economy shrinks and the left are in raptures because they feel relevant that they dictate how people live.
To highlight the madness of your restaurant analogy…
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
The restaurant has a rich menu of extravagance, sauces high in sugar and dishes full of carbs.
To balance the logic, given type 2 diabetes is a silent pandemic that kills more than pretty much all other ailments and costs the NHS a fortune, perhaps all customers need a blood test at the door, to check glycemic levels and the menu choices changes based on the result.
That is pretty similar to the gambling argument and could very well be the next thing on the ideological list.
Now nobbies restaurant doesn’t do so well and he doesn’t have 1000 to sponk nightly in the casino
You get what you want, fewer customers gambling, the economy shrinks and the left are in raptures because they feel relevant that they dictate how people live.
Gambling is regulated. You don't have to like it - you might think nothing should be regulated - that's fine, you can think that - you can think whatever you like - it doesn't alter the fact that gambling is regulated.
It's just a fact and it's not new. Operators have been breaking the law. You don't think that law should exist - but it does - that's also a fact. Not sure why you are arguing with me, you need to march on Westminster and demand deregulation of gambling and all the other things you don't like. Good luck!
It's just a fact and it's not new. Operators have been breaking the law. You don't think that law should exist - but it does - that's also a fact. Not sure why you are arguing with me, you need to march on Westminster and demand deregulation of gambling and all the other things you don't like. Good luck!
That is yet more disingenuous tripe
It’s regulated and the regulation failed in some areas and worked in others, so hold the regulator to account.
It typifies this short termism where anyone in power attempts to strike a note of their own tune, in this case add even more awkward and encroaching rules because the previous ones weren’t held in some areas.
This is one of the only things we agree on, make the regulator uphold the present rules.
Why would curtailing the sector for sake of previous fails prove to be advantageous, forced intervention creates even greater problems (if they could even uphold them, the last ones they apparently couldn’t)
The clumsy way state intervention has to use a hammer to crack a nut impacts innocent majorities.
As a stand point I am for less regulation, adding more bad ideas to cater for previous failed ones is stupid….but that’s not the reason, the reason is about ideology. They don’t want gambling (well your mates don’t, the tories would rather not bother over the issue evidenced by the way they can’t get the White Paper out)
It’s regulated and the regulation failed in some areas and worked in others, so hold the regulator to account.
It typifies this short termism where anyone in power attempts to strike a note of their own tune, in this case add even more awkward and encroaching rules because the previous ones weren’t held in some areas.
This is one of the only things we agree on, make the regulator uphold the present rules.
Why would curtailing the sector for sake of previous fails prove to be advantageous, forced intervention creates even greater problems (if they could even uphold them, the last ones they apparently couldn’t)
The clumsy way state intervention has to use a hammer to crack a nut impacts innocent majorities.
As a stand point I am for less regulation, adding more bad ideas to cater for previous failed ones is stupid….but that’s not the reason, the reason is about ideology. They don’t want gambling (well your mates don’t, the tories would rather not bother over the issue evidenced by the way they can’t get the White Paper out)
Colours to the mast; do you support the coupling of gambling and gaming?
And are you for or against deposit limits of any description?
And are you for or against deposit limits of any description?
I couldn’t careless either way about gaming, nor should anyone with a brain, but if they want to curtail it ok, only daft people who weep over dead rabbits use it apparently
As for deposit limits, loss limits evaluation of assets, salary spending patterns etc etc, I’m full against
As for deposit limits, loss limits evaluation of assets, salary spending patterns etc etc, I’m full against
I've told you what I think numerous times - but you don't like it!
It's pretty simple - I think they should tackle "problem gambling" without impacting in any way, shape or form on anybody else whatsoever. I've even told you how that could be brought about ffs.
Meanwhile you have stuck your head in the sand and screamed "please make the nasty commies go away."
It's pretty simple - I think they should tackle "problem gambling" without impacting in any way, shape or form on anybody else whatsoever. I've even told you how that could be brought about ffs.
Meanwhile you have stuck your head in the sand and screamed "please make the nasty commies go away."
As mentioned earlier,Racing should have taken a stance against being lumped in with gaming,the vast majority of problem gamblers would probably fall into the gaming camp imo.Either restricting gaming players or banning it outright would be to the benefit of problem gamblers and horseracing?
No
That’s not what I’m asking
After those silly people didn’t come to the same conclusion as you and accept your proposal……
They laid down the simple roadmap, which was about evaluating individual ability to gamble on all pursuits based on an (as yet) unknown formula.
Are you for that or against?
That’s the only game in town.
That’s not what I’m asking
After those silly people didn’t come to the same conclusion as you and accept your proposal……
They laid down the simple roadmap, which was about evaluating individual ability to gamble on all pursuits based on an (as yet) unknown formula.
Are you for that or against?
That’s the only game in town.
That's bollix - what I have said is broadly what will happen (imo) - of course they'll bodge it because the bookmakers won't allow it to be done the way I have said.
Saying that, the very fact that bookmakers will be involved, govt will be involved and the GC will be involved. It's inevitable they will bodge it!
Saying that, the very fact that bookmakers will be involved, govt will be involved and the GC will be involved. It's inevitable they will bodge it!
I don’t care about all that rubbish, just as I’m increasingly sick and tired of you
Which is why I’m boiling it down
You don’t get to second guess what might happen as a result you tit
The proposal is for review potentially of all ability of individuals to gamble on anything, you for it, or against it?
Which is why I’m boiling it down
You don’t get to second guess what might happen as a result you tit
The proposal is for review potentially of all ability of individuals to gamble on anything, you for it, or against it?
potentially, possibly, up to, maybe as much as ??
You sound like a racing Post journalist!
You sound like a racing Post journalist!
We don’t know the absolutes but we do know the theory
You got an answer or you going to continue to con the folk on this forum with your high moral bs?
You got an answer or you going to continue to con the folk on this forum with your high moral bs?
Apparently 5x wealthy than me, it certainly wasn’t down to brains….what happened daddy get lucky?
P.s
Don’t waste my time I don’t care
Answer the question
Don’t waste my time I don’t care
Answer the question
I don't want to see anybody that hasn't got a problem restricted or stopped in any, way, shape or form. I posted as much a thousand times - but you just keep calling me a prohibitionist, a socialist, a communist, etc.
You keep telling me what I think - but you keep ignoring that and telling me that I think something else instead. Your obsession with far left/far right politics and you inability to accept there is any middle ground is hampering your ability to read imo.
I want to see a review, I want it to resolve the issue of problem gambling and pretty much only that.
You keep telling me what I think - but you keep ignoring that and telling me that I think something else instead. Your obsession with far left/far right politics and you inability to accept there is any middle ground is hampering your ability to read imo.
I want to see a review, I want it to resolve the issue of problem gambling and pretty much only that.
Sure ppl with excess funds/salary won’t be affected, but that’s not the point- are you for blanket analysis of assessment based on an algorithm?
I’m asking you to answer a simple question (all you have done is pose hypotheticals to me and I’ve answered the all) yet you won’t say whether you support the blanket proposal of individual assessment.
You want world peace too right whatever that means?
And btw, it’s not politics you dummy, it’s ideology. Ideology doesn’t equate to a single party stance. If you don’t know that fo and give me some peace
I’m asking you to answer a simple question (all you have done is pose hypotheticals to me and I’ve answered the all) yet you won’t say whether you support the blanket proposal of individual assessment.
You want world peace too right whatever that means?
And btw, it’s not politics you dummy, it’s ideology. Ideology doesn’t equate to a single party stance. If you don’t know that fo and give me some peace
Dusty - From what I've read, TM's main beef is that the very people who could stop it from being an all-encompassing problem are the bookmakers themselves (because sure as eggs is eggs, they already KNOW who the problem gamblers are).
I'm off out.
In case you weren't aware they are already monitoring EVERYBODY with algorithms. If they want to monitor them (EVERYBODY) with a different algorithm purely to address "problem gambling" - yep - I would be fine with that.
In case you weren't aware they are already monitoring EVERYBODY with algorithms. If they want to monitor them (EVERYBODY) with a different algorithm purely to address "problem gambling" - yep - I would be fine with that.
The vast majority of politics and religion are based on ideology dusty!!
It's just the inverse algorithm of the one they are already running on EVERYBODY or to be more cynical, it is the one they are already running to identify "VIP" customers and/or for "marketing purposes.
I really am off out now.
I really am off out now.
One at a time
Great TM, yeas bookies try and use technology as anyone would, this isn’t about what they deems profitable, this is sate intervention using algorithm, any and everyone assed by the measure.
Good we know finally know you are a supporter of it, for all your contrived avoidance.
Lats.
That’s what TM dreams up in his self imposed vindictive attack on the bookies, that’s all he’s for. But that’s not what the cross party MPs have proposed so what he thinks they should do is irrelevant.
Cat C.
Politics is as connected with ideology as much as the last bill passed in Parliament, those individual proposals are generally one ideology or the other, evidenced by a tory government with nothing but ‘left wing policy’
Great TM, yeas bookies try and use technology as anyone would, this isn’t about what they deems profitable, this is sate intervention using algorithm, any and everyone assed by the measure.
Good we know finally know you are a supporter of it, for all your contrived avoidance.
Lats.
That’s what TM dreams up in his self imposed vindictive attack on the bookies, that’s all he’s for. But that’s not what the cross party MPs have proposed so what he thinks they should do is irrelevant.
Cat C.
Politics is as connected with ideology as much as the last bill passed in Parliament, those individual proposals are generally one ideology or the other, evidenced by a tory government with nothing but ‘left wing policy’
So I know all I need to know
TM is for the oppressions of all gambling based on a standard state imposed algorithm.
TM is for the oppressions of all gambling based on a standard state imposed algorithm.
That’s pure left wind commie ideology if ever I heard it for all his slimy protestations
Two nights in a row TM is going out….likes a pint ?
over affordability checks
1 of 1
By David Carr
4:45PM, JAN 28 2023
Long-serving administrator John Sanderson, who has been involved in running racing for more than 50 years, has warned the funding crisis facing the sport is "as grim as anything I can remember".
He was speaking about the potential impact of affordability checks, brought in by bookmakers under pressure from the Gambling Commission acting before the much-anticipated gambling review white paper.
Arena Racing Company chief executive Martin Cruddace estimated affordability checks have been the primary cause of a £280 million drop in digital betting turnover at the company's 16 courses last year compared to 2019, which he claimed would equate to £800m across the sport as a whole and a £40m hit to racing's finances. Trainer John Gosden expressed fears last week that punters moving to the black market as a result of intrusive checks would be a "disaster for both the betting industry and the British horseracing industry".
Sanderson, who has worked in racing administration since 1966 and served on the boards of the then BHB, the Racecourse Association, the Tote and Racecourse Media Group, said: "On the face of it, the situation now is as grim as anything I can remember, mostly based on the theoretical outcome of the Gambling Act review and we're still waiting for the white paper.
"Martin Cruddace knows what he's talking about and the figures he quotes don't make good reading at all. And John Gosden is a very reserved man and he's very well connected, so he won't be exaggerating.
"If we only knew what we were facing then we could start to rearrange our product."
Sanderson, 81, who started as assistant manager at York in 1966, is group chief executive of International Racecourse Management, which runs Catterick, Thirsk, Redcar and Wetherby.
He warned that the shortfall in funding would force tracks to make significant cutbacks.
"The money is a very big part of the smaller independent racecourse's revenue now," he said. "It's more than 50 per cent in some cases.
"If that's starting to go down, we have to cut somewhere to stay alive. Prize-money is an obvious area but there are other things you can cut as well. None of us is fat with staff and it's fatal cutting maintenance because it only comes back to haunt you.
"The only flexible thing, and the biggest overhead, is the cost of putting on racing, which includes prize-money and the cost of servicing owners and jockeys. But smaller and less competitive fields in turn generate less betting turnover so then you get round to thinking, should we be looking at cutting the number of races or fixtures?"
Sanderson, who was awarded an OBE for services to racing in 2012, has recently stepped down after more than 30 years as managing director at Catterick, where he did his best to make the sport's case to the local MP, now prime minister, Rishi Sunak.
"I wouldn't bother him now but wearing my Catterick hat I did my best by writing letters to Rishi," he said. "I always got a reply and he was very sensible about it but we can't influence it.
"Of course there are problem gamblers but there are also people with other problems. But nobody is worrying about that at the moment because unfortunately gambling is flavour of the month and all the politicians react and get frightened."
1 of 1
By David Carr
4:45PM, JAN 28 2023
Long-serving administrator John Sanderson, who has been involved in running racing for more than 50 years, has warned the funding crisis facing the sport is "as grim as anything I can remember".
He was speaking about the potential impact of affordability checks, brought in by bookmakers under pressure from the Gambling Commission acting before the much-anticipated gambling review white paper.
Arena Racing Company chief executive Martin Cruddace estimated affordability checks have been the primary cause of a £280 million drop in digital betting turnover at the company's 16 courses last year compared to 2019, which he claimed would equate to £800m across the sport as a whole and a £40m hit to racing's finances. Trainer John Gosden expressed fears last week that punters moving to the black market as a result of intrusive checks would be a "disaster for both the betting industry and the British horseracing industry".
Sanderson, who has worked in racing administration since 1966 and served on the boards of the then BHB, the Racecourse Association, the Tote and Racecourse Media Group, said: "On the face of it, the situation now is as grim as anything I can remember, mostly based on the theoretical outcome of the Gambling Act review and we're still waiting for the white paper.
"Martin Cruddace knows what he's talking about and the figures he quotes don't make good reading at all. And John Gosden is a very reserved man and he's very well connected, so he won't be exaggerating.
"If we only knew what we were facing then we could start to rearrange our product."
Sanderson, 81, who started as assistant manager at York in 1966, is group chief executive of International Racecourse Management, which runs Catterick, Thirsk, Redcar and Wetherby.
He warned that the shortfall in funding would force tracks to make significant cutbacks.
"The money is a very big part of the smaller independent racecourse's revenue now," he said. "It's more than 50 per cent in some cases.
"If that's starting to go down, we have to cut somewhere to stay alive. Prize-money is an obvious area but there are other things you can cut as well. None of us is fat with staff and it's fatal cutting maintenance because it only comes back to haunt you.
"The only flexible thing, and the biggest overhead, is the cost of putting on racing, which includes prize-money and the cost of servicing owners and jockeys. But smaller and less competitive fields in turn generate less betting turnover so then you get round to thinking, should we be looking at cutting the number of races or fixtures?"
Sanderson, who was awarded an OBE for services to racing in 2012, has recently stepped down after more than 30 years as managing director at Catterick, where he did his best to make the sport's case to the local MP, now prime minister, Rishi Sunak.
"I wouldn't bother him now but wearing my Catterick hat I did my best by writing letters to Rishi," he said. "I always got a reply and he was very sensible about it but we can't influence it.
"Of course there are problem gamblers but there are also people with other problems. But nobody is worrying about that at the moment because unfortunately gambling is flavour of the month and all the politicians react and get frightened."
dustybin28 Jan 23 20:09Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 23,832 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
TM is for the oppressions of all gambling based on a standard state imposed algorithm.
Unreal - I can't believe I wasted so much time, conversing with such an ignorant Rsole.
TM is for the oppressions of all gambling based on a standard state imposed algorithm.
Unreal - I can't believe I wasted so much time, conversing with such an ignorant Rsole.
Pretty rich from a man who everytime somebody in the industry opens their mouth with concerns he jumps down their throat because he apparently knows more than them.
Bleedin ell, wouldn`t like to get into an argument with you two. You do drone on 
Yep - I got sucked into conversing with The Pinball Wizard (deaf, dumb, blind kid!) 
Too many obsequious, bowing to insanity but I wont.
The extention of forcing the majority to appease the minorities.
He wants everyone to have to provide papers in order to have a bet because the person with the problem wont seek help. Pure irrational garbage.
The guy would still have the underlying flaw that made them act irrationally in the first place.You'd have to go around closing anything they then continued their illness doing, like phucking whack a mole.
What an absolute wnker.
The extention of forcing the majority to appease the minorities.
He wants everyone to have to provide papers in order to have a bet because the person with the problem wont seek help. Pure irrational garbage.
The guy would still have the underlying flaw that made them act irrationally in the first place.You'd have to go around closing anything they then continued their illness doing, like phucking whack a mole.
What an absolute wnker.
I'm bowing to nothing you half-wit - I'm the lone voice in the middle saying why none of this is necessary.
Meanwhile on one side I've got extreme nutters like you - that want to see a "wild west" (free for all) in the betting industry.
On the other side I've got a different set of extreme nutters - that want to ban or spoil the industry for all.
It's just like the real world tbf - far too many people have been sucked into holding extreme populist views and seeing everything in black or white or left and right. Very sad.
Meanwhile on one side I've got extreme nutters like you - that want to see a "wild west" (free for all) in the betting industry.
On the other side I've got a different set of extreme nutters - that want to ban or spoil the industry for all.
It's just like the real world tbf - far too many people have been sucked into holding extreme populist views and seeing everything in black or white or left and right. Very sad.
Happily, (more through fear of lost tax revenue than anything else), some sort of badly bodged attempt at common sense will likely prevail.
And the two sets of mental hate fuelled extremists can go back to campaigning for/against something else.
Stop being disingenuous ffs
You keep blathering on about your plan, that no cnt is considering, and when asked if you are for or against the proposals of those who want to inconvienience the vast majority that could easily restrict the products, you say you are for them.
And that you dont care if there are ramifications and call anyone calling these things bad as being bookie stooges.
Its a personal vendetta on your behalf against nasty bookies, that will either directly or indirectly affect everyone else.
Citing all the misery of those unfortunates but non of the benefits of gambling.
You keep blathering on about your plan, that no cnt is considering, and when asked if you are for or against the proposals of those who want to inconvienience the vast majority that could easily restrict the products, you say you are for them.
And that you dont care if there are ramifications and call anyone calling these things bad as being bookie stooges.
Its a personal vendetta on your behalf against nasty bookies, that will either directly or indirectly affect everyone else.
Citing all the misery of those unfortunates but non of the benefits of gambling.
dustybin29 Jan 23 13:37Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 23,835 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
You keep blathering on about your plan, that no cnt is considering
I think you will find the majority of people that are considering "my plan" are cnts to be fair!
Not sure why you are arguing that, given that all the recent indications are that they will deliver something very similar to what I have said all along. i.e. try to address "problem gambling" without impacting the rest of the world.
Of course it will be a bodge - because it will involve bookmakers, the GC and the govt but you should at try to keep up.
You keep blathering on about your plan, that no cnt is considering
I think you will find the majority of people that are considering "my plan" are cnts to be fair!
Not sure why you are arguing that, given that all the recent indications are that they will deliver something very similar to what I have said all along. i.e. try to address "problem gambling" without impacting the rest of the world.
Of course it will be a bodge - because it will involve bookmakers, the GC and the govt but you should at try to keep up.
Not one person can trust you when you say the exchange can fold for all you care.
Creates hypothetical characters in the extreme blowing 1000 quid a night of a company's takings as vindication that what...the casino must close, that everyone using it needs to provide all their details just to have a go themselves?
Not that the guy is absolutely irresponsible and needs to sort his life out, everyone else apparently has to cater for that t wat, how exactly is that 'centre ground' berk?
Creates hypothetical characters in the extreme blowing 1000 quid a night of a company's takings as vindication that what...the casino must close, that everyone using it needs to provide all their details just to have a go themselves?
Not that the guy is absolutely irresponsible and needs to sort his life out, everyone else apparently has to cater for that t wat, how exactly is that 'centre ground' berk?
dustybin29 Jan 23 13:44Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 23,836 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
Not one person can trust you when you say the exchange can fold for all you care.
Again - you put words in my mouth that i have never said. I have said that if the exchange were fold it would be their own fault (self-inflicted). The exchange model could/should have taken over the world - instead they focussed all of their attention on the greedy (short term) route of casino, bingo, exchange games, a sportsbook, poker, live casino and virtual sports (whatever the feck that is).
In a nutshell - the people most likely to destroy exchanges are the people running them persuing "gaming" instead.
Just as the people most likely to destroy gambling - are the "bookmakers" persuing "gaming" at all costs. It looks like thy've just come close to doing that - but hopefully not.
Not one person can trust you when you say the exchange can fold for all you care.
Again - you put words in my mouth that i have never said. I have said that if the exchange were fold it would be their own fault (self-inflicted). The exchange model could/should have taken over the world - instead they focussed all of their attention on the greedy (short term) route of casino, bingo, exchange games, a sportsbook, poker, live casino and virtual sports (whatever the feck that is).
In a nutshell - the people most likely to destroy exchanges are the people running them persuing "gaming" instead.
Just as the people most likely to destroy gambling - are the "bookmakers" persuing "gaming" at all costs. It looks like thy've just come close to doing that - but hopefully not.
If you don't understand any of that ^ - just call me a commie, pinko, socialist nutter and get back to reading your Sunday Sport.
You think I'm trying to stop you from having bet (you couldn't be more wrong) - but you can't see that the argument you are making, has just come very close to actually stopping you from having a bet and is far more likely to be the thing that eventually stops you from being able to have a bet.
You think I'm trying to stop you from having bet (you couldn't be more wrong) - but you can't see that the argument you are making, has just come very close to actually stopping you from having a bet and is far more likely to be the thing that eventually stops you from being able to have a bet.
You said that you wouldnt be bothered if it collapsed because everything has a self life and it had 20 good years or words to that effect.
And all this apparently balanced opinion you never mention the benefits of gambling, the jobs created the tax paid or the innumerable enjoyment it brings, you just dwell on the misery that can be limited if people act responsibly.
Everytime the state interferres with restrictions the economy shrinks, and in this case the individual's failings will go unchecked, they will just turn to the next abuse.
You are left of centre, you just dont understand it enough to realise.
And all this apparently balanced opinion you never mention the benefits of gambling, the jobs created the tax paid or the innumerable enjoyment it brings, you just dwell on the misery that can be limited if people act responsibly.
Everytime the state interferres with restrictions the economy shrinks, and in this case the individual's failings will go unchecked, they will just turn to the next abuse.
You are left of centre, you just dont understand it enough to realise.
Again round and fuc king round we go on TM mental roundabout.
The GC had the leverage to hold bad practice to account and failed....therefore force them to act, not create ever more questionable draconian restriction on the masses that will largly not even affect those hell bent of sponking their money.
The GC had the leverage to hold bad practice to account and failed....therefore force them to act, not create ever more questionable draconian restriction on the masses that will largly not even affect those hell bent of sponking their money.
I'm one of those weirdo's that doesn't have a pre-determined, one-dimensional, fixed view of everything!
Sometimes I am left of centre, sometimes i am right of centre - I'm happy to go wherever the long-term, sustainable, sane solutions can be found.
Sometimes I am left of centre, sometimes i am right of centre - I'm happy to go wherever the long-term, sustainable, sane solutions can be found.
@Greg_Wood_
Mon 30 Jan 2023 17.31 GMT
For centuries, sailors dreaded the Doldrums, the equatorial waters where a ship could be becalmed for weeks while its crew were slowly driven out of their minds by boredom and frustration. The extended wait for the government’s white paper on reforms to gambling legislation – originally due to be published in late 2021 – could be having a similar effect.
There seems little doubt the proposed reforms will include some form of “affordability” checks on punters whose activity raises concerns about potential problem gambling. The detail about what form these checks would take, however, or the level or type of activity that would trigger an intervention, is still unknown.
But there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that some gambling firms have decided to jump the gun. The Racing Post has been reporting for several weeks that increasing numbers of online punters have been asked to supply financial details, including bank statements, payslips and P60s, in order to continue placing bets with some companies. There is evidence too of the same practice extending to betting shops.
In turn, the Post suggests, some gamblers are being pushed towards the black market, which has grim implications for their own welfare and racing’s long-term finances. Closer to hand, there is a suggestion the annual upturn in betting turnover before and during the Cheltenham Festival in March could bring an equivalent spike in the number of punters being swept up in the checks.
Ultimate responsibility for this situation appears to lie, in the Post’s opinion, with the Gambling Commission, created by the 2005 Gambling Act to ensure gambling is “open and fair”. The Commission, it claims, has been putting increasing pressure on gambling businesses to impose the checks or face significant fines for failure to comply with the terms of their licences.
The possibility that a losing first day at Cheltenham could mean you are blocked for the final three is a difficult one for any punter to contemplate. What’s more, since a block on an account pending affordability checks is likely to be imposed by an algorithm, there is an obvious potential for chaos if it is triggered at a relatively low level of activity.
My own feeling – and while the wait for the white paper goes on, a feeling is all it can be – is that the short-term concerns are a little overblown. The Gambling Commission is a deeply deficient body in many ways – as the Football Index collapse in 2021 clearly showed – and its understanding of punters and betting is slim to nonexistent. But it would be a greater folly still to allow the betting industry to grind to a halt in the biggest week of the racing year.
In the longer term, some form of affordability checking, imposed on at least some gamblers, seems inevitable. A study in 2019 showed that a relatively small fraction of customers are responsible for most deposits with online gambling firms – 83% of deposits were from 2% of customers in one case – and while some, perhaps many, of those are high net-worth individuals who can afford it, some will be in the grip of a gambling addiction.
The overall problem gambling rate among Britain’s gamblers is about 0.3%, and betting on racing and other sports is a relatively safe form of gambling when compared with casino and gaming products such as online slots. However, if betting and gaming are treated as one and the same for affordability checks, the implications for the sport could indeed be significant and, to some extent at least, of its own making.
Racing looked the other way for years as major firms ruthlessly exploited the wholesale inadequacies of Labour’s deregulation in 2005, via £100-a-spin gaming machines on every high street. The Racing Post – under a previous editor – gave Fred Done a double-page spread to warn he would close most of his betting shops if the stake limit was cut to £2 [narrator: “when it was, he didn’t”].
A handful of voices warned at the time that gaming – online and on the high street – was being allowed to poison the well for betting, that having sown the wind, the gambling industry would reap the whirlwind in time. Now, that time has nearly arrived and the white paper will reveal the full extent to which racing will also pay the price.
Mon 30 Jan 2023 17.31 GMT
For centuries, sailors dreaded the Doldrums, the equatorial waters where a ship could be becalmed for weeks while its crew were slowly driven out of their minds by boredom and frustration. The extended wait for the government’s white paper on reforms to gambling legislation – originally due to be published in late 2021 – could be having a similar effect.
There seems little doubt the proposed reforms will include some form of “affordability” checks on punters whose activity raises concerns about potential problem gambling. The detail about what form these checks would take, however, or the level or type of activity that would trigger an intervention, is still unknown.
But there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that some gambling firms have decided to jump the gun. The Racing Post has been reporting for several weeks that increasing numbers of online punters have been asked to supply financial details, including bank statements, payslips and P60s, in order to continue placing bets with some companies. There is evidence too of the same practice extending to betting shops.
In turn, the Post suggests, some gamblers are being pushed towards the black market, which has grim implications for their own welfare and racing’s long-term finances. Closer to hand, there is a suggestion the annual upturn in betting turnover before and during the Cheltenham Festival in March could bring an equivalent spike in the number of punters being swept up in the checks.
Ultimate responsibility for this situation appears to lie, in the Post’s opinion, with the Gambling Commission, created by the 2005 Gambling Act to ensure gambling is “open and fair”. The Commission, it claims, has been putting increasing pressure on gambling businesses to impose the checks or face significant fines for failure to comply with the terms of their licences.
The possibility that a losing first day at Cheltenham could mean you are blocked for the final three is a difficult one for any punter to contemplate. What’s more, since a block on an account pending affordability checks is likely to be imposed by an algorithm, there is an obvious potential for chaos if it is triggered at a relatively low level of activity.
My own feeling – and while the wait for the white paper goes on, a feeling is all it can be – is that the short-term concerns are a little overblown. The Gambling Commission is a deeply deficient body in many ways – as the Football Index collapse in 2021 clearly showed – and its understanding of punters and betting is slim to nonexistent. But it would be a greater folly still to allow the betting industry to grind to a halt in the biggest week of the racing year.
In the longer term, some form of affordability checking, imposed on at least some gamblers, seems inevitable. A study in 2019 showed that a relatively small fraction of customers are responsible for most deposits with online gambling firms – 83% of deposits were from 2% of customers in one case – and while some, perhaps many, of those are high net-worth individuals who can afford it, some will be in the grip of a gambling addiction.
The overall problem gambling rate among Britain’s gamblers is about 0.3%, and betting on racing and other sports is a relatively safe form of gambling when compared with casino and gaming products such as online slots. However, if betting and gaming are treated as one and the same for affordability checks, the implications for the sport could indeed be significant and, to some extent at least, of its own making.
Racing looked the other way for years as major firms ruthlessly exploited the wholesale inadequacies of Labour’s deregulation in 2005, via £100-a-spin gaming machines on every high street. The Racing Post – under a previous editor – gave Fred Done a double-page spread to warn he would close most of his betting shops if the stake limit was cut to £2 [narrator: “when it was, he didn’t”].
A handful of voices warned at the time that gaming – online and on the high street – was being allowed to poison the well for betting, that having sown the wind, the gambling industry would reap the whirlwind in time. Now, that time has nearly arrived and the white paper will reveal the full extent to which racing will also pay the price.
By the way, my apologies for interrupting the private conversation.
Compared to all the alarmist ("save our bookmakers") nonsense that the Racing Post have been printing on behalf of the online slot/casino operators - That's quite a balanced piece.
Somehow he's managed to string a few paragraphs together without any use of the word "intrusive" or "draconian".
- well done that man.
Somehow he's managed to string a few paragraphs together without any use of the word "intrusive" or "draconian".
- well done that man.
I presume you have not been asked for P60s , bank statements micro analysed.....that is the definition of intrusive......keep up the nonsense........
I haven't been able to have an on-line bet with a "bookmaker" (I use the term laughingly) since about 2004 - when their intrusive "trading depts" micro analysed my accounts and discriminated against me by imposing draconian restrictions!
It was 1.01 that you would post on a thread about intrusive Rsoles imv Ff's
Just been knocked back for £70 ew @50/1 by jokey.
Wouldn't let me deposit so after 15min on chat came up with limited to £100 per month we have a duty of care etc;
I replied you ha e a duty to inform me by email and was told it was in t&c also said you had no problem taking a 10er at weekend for a football bet.
Gave me some instructions as to increase my limit with affordability checks and the steps that take you through them.
Go and **** o e self they will never know
Wouldn't let me deposit so after 15min on chat came up with limited to £100 per month we have a duty of care etc;
I replied you ha e a duty to inform me by email and was told it was in t&c also said you had no problem taking a 10er at weekend for a football bet.
Gave me some instructions as to increase my limit with affordability checks and the steps that take you through them.
Go and **** o e self they will never know
Starting to remind me of the scene in Full Metal Jacket where Private Pile gets to eat the jam donut he can’t resist and the rest of the dorm has to pay for it in extra exercise detail.
They ofc come back in the night and put bars of soap in rolled up towels and give him the beating he deserves.
They ofc come back in the night and put bars of soap in rolled up towels and give him the beating he deserves.
Spot in dusty - they couldn't resist transforming their bookmaking business into all that very high margin and addictive flashing lights sh1t - so now the rest of us have to pay for it and they are getting a bit of a beating. An excellent analogy imo. WD.
P1ss poor as usual from the apologist who when asked if the state should implement an algorithm on everyone to save those who won’t help themselves he replied ‘they already do’….except this in addition and far more stringent and enforced by people who know nowt about gambling and don’t really care about its potential impact.
Then he said he thought it was worth it.
Private Pile putting his faith in the stasi because he’s b ent out of shape about not being allowed a bet…must have been knocked back by the exchanges too….or know nobody who would but the bet on for him, like other people do….now ofc that’s an even more unlikely event as the other person would need his life story taken before being allowed to do owt.
Then he said he thought it was worth it.
Private Pile putting his faith in the stasi because he’s b ent out of shape about not being allowed a bet…must have been knocked back by the exchanges too….or know nobody who would but the bet on for him, like other people do….now ofc that’s an even more unlikely event as the other person would need his life story taken before being allowed to do owt.
I’m not wasting my time with you again today TM, everyone has seen exactly what you are about.
Those who are still around that is.
Those who are still around that is.
I thought it was a good analogy - we are all now paying the price for their law-breaking, their greed and their lack of self control.
ditto dusty - I built a lucrative career out of getting an ideologically driven, set of one-dimensional half-wits to see the point of view of an opposing set of one-dimensional thinking half-wits.
It taught me two things:
1) Pragmatists are the only people that get anything done.
2) Ideologists are selfish and self-obsessed - so they are always willing to change the fixed ideology they worship; so long as it is for their personal benefit!
Bonjour!
It taught me two things:
1) Pragmatists are the only people that get anything done.
2) Ideologists are selfish and self-obsessed - so they are always willing to change the fixed ideology they worship; so long as it is for their personal benefit!
Bonjour!
Yeah don’t swallow your tongue or owt I’ll be grief stricken.
Pragmatism is the least of your worries, you can’t see that there is no remit of the cross party to force bookies to take these amazing winning bets of yours and nor have they ever defined the difference between slots and gambling on horses, so the whole premise of your useless argument is as irrelevant as you.
Nor can you see that by having a low bar that acts as a catch all at some point will stop anyone other than those hell bent on losing any which way because they never went to get the help for the fundamental flaw they still have.
All enterprise ‘headbuts the line’ until the regulator stop them, bookies are no different, if the regulator failing then that’s on the regulator don’t try and pass this to everyone betting on say an exchange.
Pragmatism is the least of your worries, you can’t see that there is no remit of the cross party to force bookies to take these amazing winning bets of yours and nor have they ever defined the difference between slots and gambling on horses, so the whole premise of your useless argument is as irrelevant as you.
Nor can you see that by having a low bar that acts as a catch all at some point will stop anyone other than those hell bent on losing any which way because they never went to get the help for the fundamental flaw they still have.
All enterprise ‘headbuts the line’ until the regulator stop them, bookies are no different, if the regulator failing then that’s on the regulator don’t try and pass this to everyone betting on say an exchange.
Like the idiot who keeps promising to leave then pops his head back telling all those who dont care that he means it.
THE SHOP HAS LOST TODAY YET ANOTHER TOP PUNTER 3 IN THE LAST 3 WEEKS,
THE GAME HAS GONE. END OF
LAST PERSON TURN THE LIGHTS OUT .THATS HOW BAD IT IS.
RONNIE.
THE GAME HAS GONE. END OF
LAST PERSON TURN THE LIGHTS OUT .THATS HOW BAD IT IS.
RONNIE.
handtorofe 23 Jan 23 19:29
The management you are wrong i have taken a break from betfair just came back on, a long term winner paid premium charges and been harshly restricted
This looked quite an interesting post but didn't appear to get much response, so I hope handtorofe doesn't mind me asking, did they ask for proof of income and you refused (and respect to you if that's the case), or were they dissatisfied with what you sent them?
And what is the current situation, are you limited to £100 / month deposits?
The management you are wrong i have taken a break from betfair just came back on, a long term winner paid premium charges and been harshly restricted
This looked quite an interesting post but didn't appear to get much response, so I hope handtorofe doesn't mind me asking, did they ask for proof of income and you refused (and respect to you if that's the case), or were they dissatisfied with what you sent them?
And what is the current situation, are you limited to £100 / month deposits?
im not gona read the previous 128 comments since my last post otha than to say
BetVictorv had me on a 2o mill fonecall where it transpired my mthly footfall was 5.57/5.67 in their favour
end of fonecall we agreed a 2oo a mth deposit limit despite only punting 30 a mth to get the free 5er bet
im al over the constitutin /jonbon bet but trust me this goes further cos this lot are scumbags cos they 5 mins later closed account
BetVictorv had me on a 2o mill fonecall where it transpired my mthly footfall was 5.57/5.67 in their favour
end of fonecall we agreed a 2oo a mth deposit limit despite only punting 30 a mth to get the free 5er bet
im al over the constitutin /jonbon bet but trust me this goes further cos this lot are scumbags cos they 5 mins later closed account
they you used my health as an excuse
terminal but treatment will sing a bit
terminal but treatment will sing a bit
they you used my health as an excuse
terminal but treatment will sing a bit
terminal but treatment will sing a bit
All the hot air and blarney wasted on here, and the effort attached to doing it, and each of you could have done the constructive thing and written to your M.P.'s. Fifteen minutes max it would have taken.
Nobody has done it so spare me ( and yourselves ) your sanctimony about this situation.
That's why we vote them in ffs so give them a flea in their ears!
Nobody has done it so spare me ( and yourselves ) your sanctimony about this situation.
That's why we vote them in ffs so give them a flea in their ears!
You're behind the times with this one, LoyalHoncho, this was done months ago, with someone being kind enough to write the template.
And many of us did write to our MPs, and tbf I did get a courteous reply, but it was all highly predictable, protecting the vulnerable blah, blah, blah...
And many of us did write to our MPs, and tbf I did get a courteous reply, but it was all highly predictable, protecting the vulnerable blah, blah, blah...
if they are worried about vulnerability then they should look at the fact 90% cant heat their home due to profit greed and incompetence
You send them a template (that probably doesn't really say what you want it to say - because it was written by a bookmaker or somebody dependant on bookmakers) - they (or rather one of their minions) reply to you with a template because they don't understand the subject matter, let alone the detail.
Fair enough. I didn;t use a template and I got personal replies with promises of action followed up by confirmation of same.
Did everybody, or anybody else? If so keep doing it. Issues move on as this one now has. Resistance and objection is gathering momentum. Persist as you would want your jockey to on the leader you have punted.
Keep going!
Did everybody, or anybody else? If so keep doing it. Issues move on as this one now has. Resistance and objection is gathering momentum. Persist as you would want your jockey to on the leader you have punted.
Keep going!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539