Affordability check trigger

What triggers it on Betfair exchange then as winners are welcome ?

If it carries on like this the industry will finished for sure.

The racing post running alot of stories on punters caught out but still running the ads of the firms causing the problems talk about double standards.

Thanks for that I wonder what constitutes extremely large.

The Racing Post still run bookmakers adverts because its their only income. Nobody buys the paper because you would have to prove you can afford to buy such a luxury. Affordability checks to buy an overpriced paper.

The bookmakers seem to be the major problem looking for any excuse to get rid of punters with half an idea.

I wonder if JP or Harry Findlay etc have been asked for affordability checks

*Here, at least

This happened me on Tuesday was looking 70ew on woosham at 50/1 with Joe's and as had already done 100 in ante post for cheltenham.
Couldn't believe it but went to lads office and got it on

My contribution to this debate.

The real devil in this turmoil is The Gambling Commission who are an unelected quango. I suspect that their motivation is self preservation.

The bookmakers feel that they must dance to their tune because  they have the power to administer substantial fines and maybe some firms are also using it as an excuse to rid themselves of certain customers although I am not sure they needed one in the past.

The Gambling Commission will be aware that when the White paper finally makes its journey through Parliament that some MP’s may well ask what they have been doing all these years if a significant number of problem gamblers are still suffering and why it is considered that affordability checks are required in legislation. Surely, they may say, the GC has failed and what is the point in their existence.

All this pressure and activity over affordability checks are a belated and misguided attempt to show that they are proactive and serve some useful purpose in life.

Most of us would beg to differ.

The racing aristocracy are starting to be vocal. Better late than never I suppose. They are beginning to recognize the impact this may all have on their own livelihoods.

Many on here may feel that it would have been nice to hear the voices over the behaviour of the bookmakers over recent decades. I don’t suppose whether they be winners or losers that, for obvious reasons, too many journalists, presenters, trainers or high profile personalities have had their accounts closed or restricted. Now they are beginning to worry that those of us who fund the industry may find other pursuits in life.

Some of the big bookies are pretty poor when it comes to business. According to at least two or three of them, affordability checks have cost them millions upon millions in lost profits. But it seems the losses far exceed what the gambling commission could ever fine them! Why on earth the big bookies don't test the resolve of the GC and risk fines by not imposing these daft affordability checks is beyond me.

Now, I was going on about this when it started, just before the first Covid lockdown. I could see two things that would happen with the big bookmaking firms

1/ They would panic and soon entrust the affordability checks to wet-behind-the ears youngsters who would write computer based checks far removed from everyday life and punting.

2/ The same firms would again panic, again because those in command are too young and have no experience of life, and would fail to realise that affordability checks cannot be 90 to 100% based on income! Why, because many older punters have large amounts of resource behind them but smaller incomes - often through choice to avoid the higher rate tax bracket.

And for anyone who thinks I'm past posting, I had published in the Racing Post a letter during lockdown making exactly the points above.

Lastly, at least the RP are running stories of the many people in racing who are bemoaning affordability checks but two things spring to mind here.

1/ It is no good everyone moaning, they have to lobby their MP's etc over it.

2/ I would lay odds that in the past a good racing publication would have run a proper campaign about these stupid checks by now. Different era and much more serious, but the Sunday Times exposed the drugs scandal in the 70's that left many babies awfully disabled. Then, the Daily Telegraph showed up the MPs with their expenses.

But the RP just publish stories of people moaning! They need to wake up and run a proper campaign to have this nonsense stopped. A review of the law around online gambling was required but it has been hijacked by zealots who want to make the world 'perfect'. But it is their idea of perfect that is so disturbing.

Deposits are fast-tracked ie no id verification, etc.

Most of the people working in the trading department of bookies are sh1te, possibly people on day-release with little or no experience of the roles of a bookmaker. If their equivalent in the City of London eg equity market-markers London will be uncompetitive. But, bookies here have horseracing by the proverbials; their chief source of profit is fobts!

There are far too many bookies, and they need to be culled to make the profession more competitive. Also, put a restriction on advertising on mobiles and tv.

This morning on Kuenssberg the Liberal head honcho said the bookies need to be taxed more to help pay for the gambling addicts that are sapping NHS resources. And, I cannot agree more.

The first four finishers in Cheltenham's opening race on Trials day had just left a paddock in which Jonjo O'Neill Jr, dressed in the striped silks of JP McManus, spoke positively about the courageous Comfort Zone, initially to Sir Anthony McCoy and then to the waiting media. It was all interesting, important stuff, but towards the foot of the steppings, one of those surveying the scene, a man with a deep well of love for the sport, was waiting and hoping his own voice might be heard.

He called out as a few of us made our way up the central staircase on which photographers capture the moment when jubilant jockeys, owners, trainers and grooms enter that most hallowed of winner's enclosures.

The racegoer with the story had been reading about affordability checks in the Racing Post and wanted to say he, too, had been one of those affected. He wanted to say what had happened, why it mattered and how it made him feel.

As soon as he started talking, his words filled with emotion, those feelings became abundantly clear.

Mick Smith's story was told in precis form there and then. Now he has time to tell it in full, taking his mind back to New Year's Day, when it all began.

"I've had an account with bet365 for a number of years and enjoyed the services they provide," says Smith, a 61-year-old full-time driving instructor based in Ibstock, near Leicester. He had around £1,200 in the account. It was his money, but bet365 wanted to know about the money he had elsewhere. They explained in an email that they needed to establish the source of his gambling funds and whether the sums he was spending on betting were "affordable and sustainable". They explained documentation would be required and that the necessary conversation would be of "a personal nature".

Smith knew what it all meant. He also knew how he wanted to react.
"I'm not giving any personal details to you or any other betting company," he responded on January 3, adding for good measure: "It is personal for a reason."

On January 4, Smith made clear his wish for the account to be closed and all funds within it returned to him. This prompted a bet365 employee to write: "We truly appreciate how this process is making you feel. This is, however, a direction the industry as a whole is going, we need to understand more and more in regards to our customers and their funding. Effectively the same way it would be to open a bank account.

"This means that at times we need to ask you for your assistance to be able to confirm your identity and show that you have sufficient funds to support your gambling activity."

Perfectly fairly, Smith pointed out banks do not keep customers' money when accounts are terminated. Thereafter, the exchanges continued, with a different member of "the bet365 team" telling Smith on January 25 that a management review had resulted in the decision to close his account, a move Smith had himself asked for 21 days earlier. Moreover, Smith was advised: "With regards to your account balance, this will remain in your account until our management team have completed a further review. In order to assist with this review, please reply to this email attaching the documentation that we have previously requested."

Smith once again asked for his money to be returned. On February 1, three days after our Cheltenham meeting, another bet365 representative presented company policy in a different way and said documentation was only essential in instances where the customer wished to retain the account. He added that an unsuccessful attempt had been made to transfer funds on January 27.

It has been a saga – and it has taken its toll.

"This ruined my afternoon at Cheltenham," says Smith.

"What has been going on has made me frustrated and angry. I've been taking it to bed and it has prevented me from sleeping properly because I don't like conflict or confrontation. I never have.

"It wouldn't matter if it was £5, £500 or £5,000 that I was owed. It's not just about the money, it's also the aggravation this has all caused. I felt like I was being slaughtered for something that wasn't my fault. I felt their refusal to give me back my money was like some sort of punishment."

For Smith, and for so many others, the misery all started from his belief that no bookmaker has a right to see bank statements, payslips or tax returns.

"It's information that is personal to me," he says. "I would only want to share that sort of information with someone I trusted. I used to hand out people's wages and could see the lads in groups, talking about how much they had been paid. I could never do that. What I earn is personal to me. It's not something I disclose to anybody, not even family.

"Bet365 repeatedly asked me for the information – and I mean repeatedly. I started to get angry because it was obvious I wasn't getting through to them. I doubt anyone in bet365's management is going to show me the sort of personal information they wanted me to hand over."
Smith is also insistent there was no need for him to share the material, a position strengthened by the minister responsible for gambling, Paul Scully, stating unequivocally last month that neither government nor the Gambling Commission has the right to tell individuals how much they should be allowed to spend on betting. In a single sentence, the justification for affordability checks – instigated by bookmakers fearful of being fined by the Gambling Commission – was exploded, yet against a backdrop of silence from the regulator, bookmakers continue to demand personal information from customers like Smith. Not surprisingly, punters feel affronted.

"I'm 61 years old and started to love racing over 50 years ago because of grandparents who lived across the road," says Smith. "They had a bet every Saturday and then watched the racing on Grandstand and World of Sport. I did little jobs for them in the morning and, in return, they would give me 20 pence that I would use to have five pence on four horses.

"I sometimes went racing with them and then started taking my daughter Katie when she was a young girl. When we were getting towards her 21st birthday, I asked if she wanted a party. Her answer to me was: 'Dad, I don't do birthdays. I do Cheltenham Festivals.' She has had a Cheltenham membership ever since until now, and the only reason she stopped it is she has two young children and doesn't have the time."

Smith loves racing but also betting on racing. He is good at it as well, once winning £3,000 having staked a £2,000 6-4 bet about Master Minded winning the 2009 Champion Chase the day after he captured the race for the first time in 2008.
Asked what he would turn over in a normal year, he pauses and then produces a small laugh.

"It would be close to £100,000, and in most years I make a profit," he says.

"At the beginning of 2021, I wanted a new kitchen and figured it would cost about £6,000. I told a mate I was going to try to make a profit of £3,000 during the Flat season to pay for half of it. That gave me a focus. In the end, the kitchen cost me £9,000 and I only had to put around £600 of non-betting money towards it."

Smith adds: "I have had two bank accounts for years. One is for paying all my bills, the other I use for my betting money. I know all the time how much I'm gambling and I keep records.

"I understand bookmakers now have to do affordability checks, but they are targeting the wrong people."

Judged on the number of emails received by the Racing Post, there are many of those people.

One is Danny, a betting shop punter from Cornwall who asked for his surname not to be used, partly to protect his identity but also because he is friendly with the staff in the shop where he was told late last year his bets would no longer be accepted. A subsequent email exchange led to him submitting affordability check documentation. Although a winning punter, he was instructed not to use any of the bookmaker's shops.

"The crux of it for me is bookmakers are deciding what you can and can't afford – plus the email I received made out I have a gambling problem, which I don't," says Danny.

There are, of course, people who do, but another anonymous contributor to this article is one who does not.

The volume of his betting expenditure meant affordability checks were an inevitability, to such an extent he volunteered the financial information himself, fearful of hitting the affordability threshold in March and being stopped from punting during the Cheltenham Festival. Although an acceptable outcome was eventually reached, the process took longer than he believed it should, while, disturbingly, at one point in the process his records were confused with those of a different customer.

"Mistakes do happen, but when you are supplying your bank details, that sort of mistake makes you nervous," he says. "The necessity to prove his economic wellbeing makes him angry.

"Nobody could accuse me of being out of control in terms of losses or betting on lots of different things," he says.

"I do bet quite a lot on racing but it's in a very focused and consistent pattern. Apart from the fact my stakes have got a bit bigger over the years, the pattern hasn't changed. There was nothing in my account history or wider credit record that would have suggested distress, but I still felt as though I had defaulted on my credit card bill six weeks running. I felt as though I was being treated like an addict.

"I told one bookmaker I've had more grief in my head about this topic than any losing run I've ever gone through. It's intrusive, impersonal and doesn't seem to apply the law of common sense. It certainly doesn't apply the law of a person being innocent until proven guilty."

The reader, also a racehorse owner, adds: "That sense of intrusion is the main thing for me. It's a free world and I should be allowed to do what I want to do within reason. When I wrote a cheque to buy a yearling, nobody stopped to ask me if I was sure that was a good idea. What they are doing with affordability checks is akin to telling everyone in the pub they have to leave and then informing them they need to wait two weeks before being told if they can come back to the pub for a drink. It's ridiculous.

"If somebody's betting is quite clearly hobby-related and consistent with everything they have done in the past, it seems to me unreasonable to start off by treating that person like a criminal. I also don't think that's what the Gambling Commission wants."

Equally perplexed was Richard Gurney, a racing devotee and owner with numerous claims to fame, having been blessed by the late Desmond Tutu as a child and then, as an adult, assembled a collection of racing personalities to sing a song he wrote entitled 'Cheltenham' to the tune of Petula Clark's hit single Downtown. The revamped 2010 version reached number 12 in the Irish charts and made it into the UK's top 150, in the process contributing to Gurney-led efforts that over a number of years raised more than £1 million for charity.
"I've been gambling on horses all my life," says Gurney, a former permit holder and trainer of more than 50 point-to-point winners.

"I have had phenomenal years, when I wouldn't have needed to work that year because I won so much, and dreadful years, when I've had to work twice as hard. The reason I do it is because racing is more fun for me if I've had a bet. I also think that in return for all the money I've put into racing as an owner, I occasionally get a slight edge if I know my horse has been working really well at home and is running in a race where all the conditions are in his favour."

Gurney used to do his betting with Betfair. That changed in October when he discovered his account had been frozen. It was then closed at Gurney's behest when he refused to submit bank statements and tax returns.

"I don't see why, at the age of 55, I should accept some guy on the phone suggesting I might have a gambling problem when I know I'm totally in control," says Gurney.

"It made me feel that there was something wrong with me. I know I'm becoming a bit of a dinosaur but I think we have enough of a nanny state already without me giving Betfair what would amount to all my personal financial information, details of what I earned and when I earned it, plus all the other transactions. I'm afraid that's just a step too far. It's the sort of information that has nothing to do with them.

"As someone who, I suspect, was in the top ten per cent bracket of Betfair customers, I was also surprised I didn't get a call from anyone with any real authority explaining why this was happening or expressing any real desire to keep me. All I had was the guy who said to me, in effect, 'produce your documents or you're gone'."
Gurney does not regret his decision but he already misses using the betting exchange

"Betfair was a big part of my life and I feel like I've left an institution for which I felt fondness," he says, emphasising he is not simply sorry for himself but also anxious for the sport.

He explains: "The thing that worries me more than anything is bookmakers in general could use all this as an excuse to reduce their support to racing, arguing they have been battered as a result of customers leaving. The instant I put the phone down following the conversation with the guy from Betfair, I thought: 'Oh my God. If they are doing this with everybody, a big problem is coming racing's way.'

"Another reason I say that is I've always felt one upside of betting is that on those occasions when you lose your shirt at the races, you can go home knowing your bets have supported the sport."

That is not the case when betting with black market bookmakers. Smith knows that and feels guilty he may reluctantly consider the unlicensed avenue, having also been asked to forward documents by Betfred, who suggested that records relating to income, savings or even a divorce settlement would be deemed acceptable.

"I love horses, as you could see from all the photos we have around the house, but I enjoy betting as well," says Smith.

"I have been very stressed over what has been happening. It has made me emotional. In future, I'll probably only bet when I go to the races, although I might do what others have done and look to places where they don't want personal information. I know that's not right, but you feel like you're being forced to do it if you want to carry on betting."

For Smith and the sport he adores, that is a reason to feel real sadness.

*The Racing Post contacted Bet365 and Betfair in relation to the cases of Smith and Gurney. Bet365 and Betfair declined to comment.

A hair brained initiative put forward by mostly leftish ideology (it doesn’t matter which party you are part of it’s what ideological theory each proposal follows) because bookies targeted losers who could have told them to stop, but also refused the help that was funded by the betting industry.
It seems innocent people are getting picked off left and right while the government drags its feet as to how best appease everyone.
They should simply have asserted themselves in the beginning by telling the regulator they hadn’t adequately done their job and to buck up their ideas and impose the already available laws where vulnerable types are involved.
It’s total madness to have a cross party reign down threats from a point of little knowledge of the sector as a whole, a government who won’t tell them to back off and a regulator that failed and then given more responsibility while providing them no general rules.

The racing industry (along with us 'shrewd' punters) should have put much more effort into opposing the restrictions on FOBTs. More should have been made of the loss of media rights income caused by consequent closures of betting shops.

More importantly, it would have meant that the anti-gambling lobby would still have been fighting that old battle, while leaving the rest of us alone.

The moral of the story is never to cheer on the state banning anything. Because it just brings you yourself one step closer to the firing line.

@ sfbtw these bookies only opened because of fobts! And fobts completely changed bookies from being primarily horse and dog racing to mini-casinos. It was imo ridiculous that roulette moved from a game that could only be played in a members club with 48 hours notice to join, to a game that could be played immediately by someone walking from the street.

Dave, the funny thing is that I agree with you completely!

But the FOBTs issue was the area where our enemies chose to fight their battle. If we'd kept fighting them there, we wouldn't have had them now parking their tanks on our front lawn.