Gambling commission - Luck on sunday interview

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.

I think he answered Nicks questions very well. The fact is people are moving away from betting on horse racing. That is a FACT

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

https://www.racingtv.com/videos/watch/ondemand/142842

ta

there you go dustybin, I thought he spoke well, and Nick didnt like it.

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.

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!

Agree with dustybin and impossible. Bookmakers are getting rid of horse racing bettors. FACT

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.

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'.

Oops, my bad. 'vulnerable' people.

Feb 12, 2023 -- 2:12PM, Cider wrote:

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'.

I thought he did Cider, going on from impossibles post (Gambling-laws regulation etc) it can not be controlled in the way some people think Just my views

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.

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!

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.

People getting credit to gamble is the problem in that scenario (or gambling with their credit)

In a dim and distant past, people used to be responsible for their own decisions. Those were the days, eh.

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.

Responsibility and addiction are vastly different entities. The former can be educated (if inclined), the latter is mental - possibly inborn.

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?

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?

Feb 12, 2023 -- 2:40PM, impossible123 wrote:

Responsibility and addiction are vastly different entities. The former can be educated (if inclined), the latter is mental - possibly inborn.

Even if you gave that theory credibility, affordability checks wouldn't stop someone who is dangerously addicted to gambling.

Banning the local alcoholic from the pub doesn't stop them from drinking. They'll do literally anything to get the next drink, that's what makes them an addict.

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.

Feb 12, 2023 -- 2:40PM, impossible123 wrote:

Responsibility and addiction are vastly different entities. The former can be educated (if inclined), the latter is mental - possibly inborn.

No doubt some cases are genetic, but with proper help gambling addiction, like any addiction, can be over come.

Something to remember : If a problem gambler "Can't STOP even if they want to stop" (without help) Lets say Spins on the slots for 2 hours impulsively... loses deposits £100 and tries the next race at Kempton £100 on the Fav hasn't got a clue just see 5/4.... Wins and goes back to the slots....  "He or SHE wants that BONUS!"   That's how Horse Racing is intertwined into the individual who is at risk.

I think the spokesman for the gambling commission explained that Very well imo.

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.

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.

This mob need to take a back seat or fk off to Iran….

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.

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

And he admitted to having a punt ffs

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.

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.

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.

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

that's just between you and me Dave.  don't tell Paddy i told you

Racing post pushing today "The Black Market" There is NOT a significant risk to black market betting. There is a Significant risk if bookmakers don't take bets, the game we love is gone.

Of course, people who fill in online surveys who are disgruntled with not being able to place a decent bet (unless on the exchange's late) They will tick yes, to almost every question. That to me is not evidence.

Some of the news stories the racing post push, I'm deeply ashamed of.

That is simply not true trident.

Look back through history, each time regulation tried to do something a loophole was found that empowered the black market, when they decided licensed properties weren’t allowed they found a loophole, there were operations that started up on street corners and companies that were simply fronts to take bets.

Now more than ever an unlicensed foreign internet company could ply a trade direct onto individual’s internet connected devices and no matter how much regulation is in place they couldn’t stop it.

The difference is all the money that goes to those operators 0% goes to either racing or help.
If bookies create products that you have less likelihood of winning on, then don’t play them. It really is that simple.
Bookies don’t owe anyone anything, if the environment becomes too strict for them to ply a trade easily they go where they can.

Feb 13, 2023 -- 9:04AM, dustybin wrote:

That is simply not true trident.Look back through history, each time regulation tried to do something a loophole was found that empowered the black market, when they decided licensed properties weren’t allowed they found a loophole, there were operations that started up on street corners and companies that were simply fronts to take bets.Now more than ever an unlicensed foreign internet company could ply a trade direct onto individual’s internet connected devices and no matter how much regulation is in place they couldn’t stop it.The difference is all the money that goes to those operators 0% goes to either racing or help.If bookies create products that you have less likelihood of winning on, then don’t play them. It really is that simple.Bookies don’t owe anyone anything, if the environment becomes too strict for them to ply a trade easily they go where they can.

I understand your view, dustybin, thanks. From my blinkered view I suppose, the punters I know, and it's a lot of people, they wouldn't bet on the black market for risk of not being paid.

Take it from me, these crypto casino/bookmakers and unlicensed bookies online can go bust at any given moment. I simply refuse to believe regular punters who have been betting for years are moving to the black market because they are being asked for affordability checks. It doesn't add up to me.

The reason the black market isn’t prevalent is because regulation made them unviable.
If the legitimate product is as good or better than the illegitimate one then why take the risk.

Since the turn of the millennium the black market has been on the back foot, much like we’re the Taliban. They also thought they were all gone and look what happened; as soon as an opportunity arises back they come because you can’t eradicate thought in ppls minds.

The whole crypto world is in fact evidence people will do remarkably stupid things, no matter how risky they are.
When you suggest you don’t know anyone who would seek out a black market operator, how many are degens who simply refuse to take the help offered?

Those too ‘addicted’ will be manna from heaven for the black market….even instructions how to use VPNs or jailbreak devices will be offered if required.


Just look at the daft jobsworth puritans of the past and the crackpot ideas they came up with in attempts to hinder gambling; bookies could only have x% of glass viewable into the premises. They have come up with so many daft ideas just over the last half century and then reneged on them.

Ironic that the paper that has spent years lauding Tony Bloom should start worrying about black market bookies. Where do they think Bloom places his moneyball stats-driven mega-punts on football if not black market books in the Far East? He's not popping down to Ladbrokes each week.

That’s a conflated issue, the GC nor the cross party have any interest in forcing bookies to take bets.

*deregulation made black markets unviable ….that should have read

Ai and algorithms have also contributed to the downfall in turnover for Horse Racing. I know this to be true, as I'm in the industry.

Last weekend, the Gambling Commission chief executive made a claim in these pages that was greeted with incredulity and amazement by those familiar with the organisation's work: he claimed it was "nonsense" to say the intrusive affordability checks blighting punters and doing serious damage to racing's revenues were the work of the betting regulator.

Andrew Rhodes's rationale for making that claim was that the regulator has not explicitly mandated that bookmakers should demand pay slips, bank statements and tax returns from their customers.

But, he conceded, the Gambling Commission had made it clear to bookmakers they must have "proportionate thresholds" for betting activity above which firms are expected to consider customers' financial circumstances and their ability to 'afford' their betting. Failure to do so could result in huge fines for bookmakers, or even the loss of their licence.

How firms satisfy this regulatory requirement, Rhodes stated, was up to them. But how else are bookmakers supposed to consider their customers' individual financial circumstances, except by asking bettors for pay slips, bank statements and tax returns?

The situation is compounded because the Gambling Commission refuses to define what those "proportionate thresholds" ought to look like, preferring instead some ambiguous waffle about "average available income" and the distinction between "disposable" and "discretionary" income. Bookmakers, caught between the rock and a hard place of swingeing punishments and impossibly vague guidelines, have understandably applied the precautionary principle, meaning tens of thousands of ordinary, responsible punters have already been caught up in affordability checks.

It is akin to the German police declaring that anyone found driving "too fast" on the autobahn will be hit by massive fines and possibly lose their licence, refusing to clarify what "too fast" means, and then, when the network slows to a crawl because the roads are full of nervous Teutonic motorists tootling along at 20mph, saying, 'Well, we haven't imposed any speed limits, so it's nothing to do with us'.

If the Gambling Commission genuinely does not think affordability checks are the product of its own regulation, then it is oblivious to the obvious consequences of its guidelines. If – as seems more likely – it is claiming innocence on affordability checks because it recognises how controversial they are and wishes to avoid scrutiny, then it is treating bettors with contempt and misleading both consumers and the political masters to whom it supposedly answers.

According to a Racing TV survey released this week, more than a fifth of racing bettors have already been asked to supply personal documents such as payslips and bank statements, and the fear now is next month's Cheltenham Festival will prove a seismic moment in this saga for all the wrong reasons. Many punters whose betting activity the rest of the year is under the bookmakers' current "proportionate thresholds" are liable to be hit with demands for financial documents, simply because for one week of the year they significantly increase their betting budget.

While at most bookmakers these thresholds remain opaque, we know that at 888, owner of William Hill, the affordability check bar has been set at £500. This is a sum many recreational punters would regard as a conservative bank for the festival, yet, at some bookies, it will be enough to generate freezes on activity until sensitive financial documents are provided.

Cheltenham Festival: starts on March 14
Cheltenham Festival: could prove seismic moment in affordability checks saga (Edward Whitaker)

The madness of that figure is highlighted by the fact merely attending the festival would be deemed potentially 'unaffordable' on the same basis. At the time of writing, a three-star hotel room in town on the opening night of Cheltenham will set you back more than £400. A Tattersalls ticket for the Tuesday is £72. Throw in food, drinks and transport, and you're looking at close to £600 for the day. Is the Premier Inn going to start demanding bank statements at check-in?

It is absurd and offensive that people attempting to deposit a few hundred quid with a bookmaker next month are going to be treated as though they are incapable of making the most trivial of financial transactions without the nannying oversight of a bookmaker's compliance operator, but be under no illusions: this is a situation inevitably created by the Gambling Commission's overweening and ill-conceived regulation.

The commission's refusal to even admit it is the architect of affordability checks indicates the seriousness of the situation facing racing and bettors. The only real form of recourse, and the only hope that the out-of-control regulator can be stopped before catastrophic damage is done to racing, is for the government to step in. Yet the prospect of that happening, which seemed relatively positive just a few weeks ago when the gambling minister Paul Scully declared it was not the regulator's job to determine what people can afford to spend on gambling, has now receded.

Scully has been reshuffled, having been in the job for less than four months. His successor - who more than a week later has still not been appointed - will be the sixth minister since the gambling review, which we hope will provide clarity about what is and isn't expected from bookmakers, was announced in 2020.

Clearly, gambling reform is not near the top of prime minister Rishi Sunak's priority list. But if the political class does not care much whether your rights are curtailed by a regulator, or that the collateral damage is a centuries-old sport loved by millions and a successful rural industry, what politicians undoubtedly do care about is votes.

Thankfully, Racecourse Media Group, the racecourse-owned parent company of Racing TV, has just launched a letter-writing campaign that enables bettors to quickly and easily alert their local MP to their concerns about affordability checks and the Gambling Commission's behaviour. You can sign the letter by following this link. If you care about your rights, or the future of racing, I urge you to do so before it is too late.