There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
12 Feb 23
12:41
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Jul 02
I just completed watching this, the warrior household enjoy a sunday lay-in.
I waited patiently for the 'elephant in the room' question - the difference between the vast majority of low risk horse racing punters who actually enjoy the sport itself and use their brains to come to an informed bet and the crazed drugged up, drunk young idiots who do their brains on online casinos at 2am on a sunday mornings on crazy fast turnaround slots, which offer zero chance of winning in the long term.
The gambling commission believe that most gamblers play football and casino in addition to horseracing. Well, with me I bet on horses and only match bet on soccer via 2-up strategies. I have NEVER bet on online casinos. I like to put this down to my knowledge that in the long term it is IMPOSSIBLE to win at casinos.
Why cant online casinos just be banned by the authorities? All bookmakers blatantly lie when they say they protect punters, they actually NEED problem gamblers to increase their profits. Day after day welcome offers include the disgusting FREE SPINS AT OUR CASINO in bright flashing lights.
So my solution is to ban casinos. This will obvs reduce bookmaker profits and therefore they will increase their already ludicrous horse racing margins to compensate'. Hopefully this will then lead to my preferred end game of only betting exchanges and a tote monopoly in the online space with zero casino offerings , high street bookmakers with no FOBTs or virtual products and an increasing return to on-course bookmaking.
We will see!!
I waited patiently for the 'elephant in the room' question - the difference between the vast majority of low risk horse racing punters who actually enjoy the sport itself and use their brains to come to an informed bet and the crazed drugged up, drunk young idiots who do their brains on online casinos at 2am on a sunday mornings on crazy fast turnaround slots, which offer zero chance of winning in the long term.
The gambling commission believe that most gamblers play football and casino in addition to horseracing. Well, with me I bet on horses and only match bet on soccer via 2-up strategies. I have NEVER bet on online casinos. I like to put this down to my knowledge that in the long term it is IMPOSSIBLE to win at casinos.
Why cant online casinos just be banned by the authorities? All bookmakers blatantly lie when they say they protect punters, they actually NEED problem gamblers to increase their profits. Day after day welcome offers include the disgusting FREE SPINS AT OUR CASINO in bright flashing lights.
So my solution is to ban casinos. This will obvs reduce bookmaker profits and therefore they will increase their already ludicrous horse racing margins to compensate'. Hopefully this will then lead to my preferred end game of only betting exchanges and a tote monopoly in the online space with zero casino offerings , high street bookmakers with no FOBTs or virtual products and an increasing return to on-course bookmaking.
We will see!!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 49
|
By:
I write this missive after reading today's RP article on the Gambling Commission by Bill Barber.
As far as I am aware, it is universally accepted by the medical profession that smoking is a great killer of our fellow man. Not an hour ago I was stood in a queue in a supermarket waiting to buy a lottery ticket at the tobacco counter immediately behind a lady who spent over £100.00 there and then on cigarettes alone - nobody behind the counter asked her whether or not she could afford the cigarettes and most certainly did not warn her that she could be banned from buying such a lethal product. Likewise, I was not asked if I could afford my lottery ticket even though I must be a familiar face at the counter. |
|
By:
I think he answered Nicks questions very well. The fact is people are moving away from betting on horse racing. That is a FACT
|
|
By:
Apart from Cheltenham, the Grand National, who apart from us on the forums really gives two hoots about small field races, low quailty races on the AW for example. Just a small few left imo who interact with the sport on a dialy basis.
|
|
By:
Just because smoking kills it cannot be used to equate or marginalise the negative effects of over-zealousness and unscrupulousness of bookies for profits on society, the national health and medical professions.
A new digital legislation for betting and gaming must be introduced to curtain the selfish business behaviour of present bookies. And, a restriction on betting/gaming advertisements on tv, mobile and electronic devices and culling of bookies (too many) are other measures must be introduced to tackle this vice of bookies; the BHA and Gambling Commission have been proven reticent and unwilling to act accordingly. |
|
By:
If it is only a few of us who bet on horses most days and we don't lose much then why should anyone care?
|
|
By:
They can obviously delineate sports betting from zero risk betting when it comes to measuring 'risk' to consumers (as he called them). But claims it's impossible when it comes to 'affordability checks'. Patently, a crock of shyte.
|
|
By:
Where can I watch this?
Id like to know what the evidence is that shows simply restricting legitimate tax paying betting facility across the board based on a given figure will actually stop the unhinged from actively going wherever they need to to carry on gambling? There could be an outcome where the only people who get closed down are the sensible gamblers, and those too arrogant to seek out the help thats funded by the regulated betting type never actually seeking the help they require and keep losing everything. |
|
By:
https://www.racingtv.com/videos/watch/ondemand/142842
|
|
By:
ta
|
|
By:
there you go dustybin, I thought he spoke well, and Nick didnt like it.
|
|
By:
Just for general interest people need to read the history part of 'The Art of Legging', and see how many times gambling law has changed, and what happened each time as a result....it can not be controlled in the way some people think.
|
|
By:
Come on! The bookies are using AC to "manage" the impending measures of the Gambling White Paper. The bookies are crooks and have brought this upon themselves - nobody else. And, recreational punters the main sufferers; big punters with a direct line to bookie head honchos or their "friends" are still able to bet unrestricted!
The bookies are disingenuous to the core! |
|
By:
Agree with dustybin and impossible. Bookmakers are getting rid of horse racing bettors. FACT
|
|
By:
The point is people who arnt these ones getting favourable treatment seem to think increasing regulation will
A. Fix the ones degen enough to do nothing to stop themselves becoming ruined (whether or not it wipes out perfectly innocent activities also) and B. Make bookies become whatever it is they personally desire from a bookie. I want to see the evidence. |
|
By:
I don't really see how he spoke well. Like a politician, he was reasonable at deflecting the obvious challenges.
He's stating that the bookmakers must ensure that they don't have problem gamblers, but not specifying exactly what they have to do to achieve it. Obviously a nonsense as a bookmaker has no way of knowing your financial position. The only plausible way that they can do that is to pry into your financial affairs. If someone unemployed is putting all their UC and cost of living handouts on online slots, even if the bookie limited them (which I doubt happens), there's nothing stopping them popping down the high street and putting the cash in there instead, or opening another online account. As we have become so used to in the modern age, it's not about problem solving, it's just giving the impression that you're taking it seriously. It doesn't matter if people who aren't impacted by problems get caught up in the backwash, as long as you can brag on twatter about what you're doing to keep people 'safe'. |
|
By:
Oops, my bad. 'vulnerable' people.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Trident, he showed no inclination whatsoever to find a way of protecting people from going through invasive affordability checks. In fact, one sensed that he thought everyone who wants to bet should suffer them.
No doubt horse racing betting revenue is diminishing, and that's not all down to affordability checks, but that completely evades the key point. That even if you agree with the premise of affordability checks, they should only happen where the individual is at a very high risk of self harm. |
|
By:
The present scenario is detrimental to the individuals concerned, their families, society and other welfare entities. The predominant and main cause of it is the bookies. Any dispute here? None, it's as clear-cut as night follows day. Otherwise bookies reps will be protesting and debating on a public forum or media outlets. But, they will not. Just ask oneself why?
As such this scenario must be changed. We cannot have the same sh1te, different day scenario. This cancer must be removed despite the removal methodology is opened to debate and discussion. But, the bookies must not be allowed a major contribution on this - they are the cause! |
|
By:
Part of the problem has to be the banks. If they keep giving credit to people who are clearly borrowing to fund a betting account, it is their responsibility to restrict the credit, not a bookmaker.
|
|
By:
People getting credit to gamble is the problem in that scenario (or gambling with their credit)
|
|
By:
In a dim and distant past, people used to be responsible for their own decisions. Those were the days, eh.
|
|
By:
I’ve not seen a more confusing and contradictory interview to be honest. If I was a bookie I’d have no clue what do to keep my licence.
|
|
By:
Responsibility and addiction are vastly different entities. The former can be educated (if inclined), the latter is mental - possibly inborn.
|
|
By:
This guy saying what the GC HASNT said the bookies need to do, and ambiguously says what they want as the outcome....thats akin to saying 'deal with it' without defining how.
Perhaps the White Paper shall do that, but I dont feel confindent the GC will rectify this problem especially when he is directly asked about actual cases and he bats it back predictably with 'Im not going to comment on individual cases' Each time new betting regulation changed what could and couldnt be done legally through history it created a new avenue for illegitimate gambling that thrived (people can argue all they wish about what that looks like today, but what they cant do is deny where theres oportunity somebody will fill it) They eventually arrived at lesser regulation to bring betting into the light, and forced a requirement for bookies to act accordingly by providing help and having to restrict people on demand. Any level of contrivance away from that model will simply be a backward step. And again as Ive said many times on this issue, its because people simply do not want to say what most people believe; that you are responisble for the decisions you make. I123 An addict knows instinctively what act is doing them harm....they personally choose to address it, or choose not to. That is the dichotomy here. Should people be allowed to ignore the fact they could seek out help? |
|
By:
But Cider, the woke community are worried about the wife and kids so I suppose the first question asked of a gambler before taking a bet should be "do you have any family?) If he says "yes, my wife is a millionaire who prefers me to spend my afternoons betting", what should they do?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
The bookies are using AC as an excuse to beat recreational punters or punters with an understand of abstinence eg skint, and skill; AC is more akin to fobts and electronic games where users could lose significant amounts in a jiffy online and in shops.
To me this is as simple as ABC; just ignore the bookies. They have an ulterior aim and sick attitude; 1st objective is to eradicate the ills, the rest can come later given time eg ban all forms of advertising online, tv and mobile. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
There's nothing to stop online bookies restricting recreational punters, without affordability checks. I don't have any unrestricted accounts. In fact, in my area of gambling that I specialise in, there are only 2 bookies that I can get more than a fiver on. Out of circa 30 accounts.
|
|
By:
I did when a £20 antepost @9/1 struck gold with ***way. The reason it was one of AOB's charges. Construed affiliation or inside knowledge perhaps? If only.
|
|
By:
This mob need to take a back seat or fk off to Iran….
|
|
By:
Will someone please explain WTF is going on here?
Surely, surely, surely people can only deposit up to the amount in their bank accounts? So, it therefore must be that all problem gamblers have enormous bank account balances from which to keep depositing when they lose?!! The bookies have made a pigs ear out of the gambling commission jumping the gun and both bodies have panicked and lost all reason. But, most of all, who does that guy from the GC think he is. Far too righteous for my liking. Way too many people try to tell everyone else what to do today. |
|
By:
its quite funny that the guy from the gambling commmision dictating punters affordability is live streaming from a 1 bed flat the size of a telephone box with plastic trunking going up the wall
 |
|
By:
And he admitted to having a punt ffs
|
|
By:
If ever a group of employees got money on false pretences it’s those who work for the gambling commission,no idea and still operate as if we are in the height of the pandemic.
|
|
By:
Agree with dustybin and impossible. Bookmakers are getting rid of horse racing bettors. FACT
they haven't needed 'horse racing bettors' since the day the FOBT's came to town. between 6% and 10% of anything put into those things is GUARANTEED to end up in their bank account. regardless. when you have a guaranteed income stream, you can afford to turn your back on anything remotely risky. not completely, by profiling you can maintain anyone deemed profitable (mugs, free bet anyone ?). everyone else is 2 pence max bet. |
|
By:
get a stream of coral tv or willhill tv - they show and talk about every horse race (between cartoon racing). bookies love horse racing, they just don't like bettors who can make money from it.
|
|
By:
they don't like bettors making money from anything.
lay one on here at 4.6, put a back up at 4.8 to green up ('make money', call it what you want) paddy's bot will stick £108 up at 4.7 to stop you getting on. he doesn't like it, you seeeeee  |
