There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Racing Post
Opinion - Tom Kerr
Out-of-control Gambling Commission is either clueless or treating us with contempt
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[/b
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 [b]treating bettors with contempt and misleading both consumers and the political masters to whom it supposedly answers.
According to a Racing TV survey released last 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.
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 da. 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.
Opinion - Tom Kerr
Out-of-control Gambling Commission is either clueless or treating us with contempt
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[/b
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 [b]treating bettors with contempt and misleading both consumers and the political masters to whom it supposedly answers.
According to a Racing TV survey released last 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.
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 da. 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.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 114
|
By:
tragic really what's happening, depriving people on low wages, the poor etc from ever having a bet online, that's what it amounts to
|
|
By:
If I had had to do 'affordabilty' checks in the late 90s when I first started out gambling I would never of made it.
What right has some suit in a government agency to tell us that we cannot have our last £100 on the spring double to change our life? They don't ask people before they **** for a bank statement to prove they can afford to bring up a child (costs 100k+) so why ask someone with cleared funds if they can afford a £100 bet? |
|
By:
On ppl’s responsibilities; whenever I see the bbc report from food banks they always seem to find the ones taking the p1ss. (I’m really wondering if either everyone at food banks are taking the p1ss, or whether the bbc go out their way to prove a point?)
The woman apparently couldn’t feed her own spawn and so was at the food bank. She had lip injections, eye brow manipulations (whatever that process is) tattoos up her neck, fake eyelashes and piercings. The lips and the eyebrows require constant financing and apparently are more important than her kids eating. If the bbc are purposefully finding these feckless types then could it not all be part of the greater agenda; that whatever values people used to believe in are being torn down and replaced with state reliance and therefore state control? |
|
By:
The whole feckless gambling debate is about the rights of the unhinged denying help, trumping the rights of everyone one else who act reasonably.
Only for the degens being free to wreck themselves in new unregulated ways- the whack a mole tactic that would never end (and increasingly worsen) I’ve sent my letter to my MP, so should all others. |
|
By:
bookies aren't complaining about these checks. they want to know every last detail about everyone who bets, or attempts to bet with them. so they can profile them and work out if they're worth keeping.
this guys earns £250k a year, look at his wage slips !!! quick, send him 50 free spins on rainbow riches, lets see if we can get him addicted. |
|
By:
And if the guy has the nous to earn quarter of a mill a year he will
A understand the probability of those games And b know he can tell them to stop sending the offers and advertising to him and seek help that is financed by the bookmaking industry. This is simply a lack of personal responsibility. If you look hard enough anyone can find an excuse embedded in any single act. Today’s society is attempting to regress to the point where anyone can dream up any legitimacy to vindicate their own actions. |
|
By:
We are attacked from every angle, db. They are very clever though, if you call it out, they have cultivated people into calling you a thick conspiracy theorist.
Pretty much anything normal people enjoy has been taken away, in the process of being taken away, or will be under strict state control and only given to you if you are obedient. Along with our language of course, and equitable justice. At least, that's the intention. 15 minute cities anyone? And if they get their way, you won't even be able to write about what is happening to us online. |
|
By:
Hulk23 is spot on here. The whole rationale of ALL sportsbooks is to lure the punter in with promotions. They then weed out the 'matched bettors' very quickly using algoritms. After this they focus on finding out how much disposable a punter is with the main objective of luring them onto their casino games, where the real profit lies. As to identifying problem gamblers, they are expert at that but unlike their adverts they ENCOURAGE irresponsible gambling not stop it.
Ever wondered why all the race channels constantly refer to sportsbook prices rather than the ALWAYS larger exchange prices. You then know who is in charge of this game 100% Then Bruce Millington comes out of the woodwork championing 'bet builder' for horse racing. Sadly the honest normal punter is not allowed to use his/her brain and hard work to make a modest profit from betting. The bookies are just not interested in your custom. sorry |
|
By:
All the more reason not to create illogical and contrived rules that press bookies to ask such personal questions.
Your shopping purchases are analysed by the supermarket and you are given offers to encourage you to keep spending, often on products that have colourful packaging and danger charts showing how bad they are for you. You then either buy them or you don’t. What you generally can’t do is tell the brands to stop targeting you. Gambling you can tell them not to contact you and to self restrict the account. It doesn’t matter what bookie funded operations do, you wouldn’t let somebody else control the steering wheel while you drive. The onus is on you. |
|
By:
Would this be the same Tom Kerr who has shown next to zero interest in the draconian restrictions applied by off course bookmakers to any punter who shows a semblance of discipline and/or ability?
|
|
By:
dusty - your comments make me wonder if you even have an account with an on-line "bookmaker" asides from the exchange?
The reality is that if you exercise your choice to self-exclude from all the addictive "wheels & reels" sh1te - you are automatically telling them that you are not the kind of customer they want - and taking yourself a big step closer to having your account closed or restricted beyond use. |
|
By:
I’ve had a number of bookie accounts over the years but the only one I ever use nowadays is b364 on the occasional football or pre off bet.
Well if you have a problem with gambling on slots I don’t see it as an excuse to argue you wouldn’t ask them to stop you harming yourself on the basis they might also stop you betting on horses but instead prefer the option everyone else has to be stopped from all activities instead. |
|
By:
I looked in the spam folder the other day. There were infact some offers from operators I’d never heard of in there. I doubt very much they’d care too much what the GC decide is or isn’t permissible.
Just as phishing email in general don’t care what the media regulator make of things. |
|
By:
Patently obvious isn't it. If they can manage to restrict you from specials betting to pennies but still allow unlimited betting on casino and slots on the same account, they could do the opposite. They don't want to. For one thing it would mean admitting how much more addictive the no risk stuff is.
They could easily delineate no risk betting, and enforce affordability checks on that. The reason why I can only get some medication from a pharmacy is that it's considered to be more risky and needs to be controlled and monitored. Which in gambling terms, is where slots, bingo and casino should sit. |
|
By:
Organised crime will fill the void !
People who want a ''bet'' will always be accommodated ! Woke politicians are killing racing ! A new way to fund the sport MUST Be FOUND !! |
|
By:
I don't have much respect for Tom Kerr. Let me share something. There are 1000s of players out there who enjoy a bet on the horses, but then become addicted to the Slots. When the algorithm triggered the bookmaker then puts all sports into consideration.........
The Fact is : People that contribute to horse racing then go and lose on games of chance, and i mean lose a fast some of money that comes from somewhere. |
|
By:
I agree with halcyon days. It's time to move from bookmakers to fund horse racing. It's Over.
|
|
By:
Surely it is organised crime that has been filling the void since about 2004 when the regs were liberalised and the GC went AWOL - Why do you think they keep getting fined millions of pounds?
|
|
By:
The truth is, online bookmakers and casino's are just a place to launder money. The guardian will have a big story soon.
https://youtu.be/ABj7peI_R2M |
|
By:
Halcyon seems to know the score.
Better the devil you know, all this bookie baiting is a confluence and a misconstrued one. I do wish people would remember that the GC’s form for wanting to ride two horses at once continues, they are scared to death to hold bookies to account over how they run their business, while attempting to appear supportive of the arrogant minority with no self control. I want to see evidence of where bookies will be forced to take bets after being more strictly regulated, this is the continually implied undertone of all those happy to criticise them. If they didn’t want you before they won’t want you in future and the cowardly GC won’t help you. If you think the offering of slots by regulated operators is criminal you ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait until the government are forced into acting, then the cards are played and everyone with sinister motive will have seen their hand and then will make their move. Governments are cumbersome and continually outmanoeuvred. |
|
By:
Enforcing bookmakers to take bets from losing accounts in order to retain their licence is for the birds. Unfortunately. They would then be tacitly admitting that people like us could gamble for a living, and by dint of that pay no income tax or NI. The establishment in this country would not, I don't believe, ever entertain that, or risk being seen to encourage or give a pass to high stakes gambling.
Quangos are a blight on society, and as all regular people have now found to their detriment, are operated to protect the suppliers of, and not recipients of goods and services. While polishing their own public profile amongst the chattering/dinner party classes. |
|
By:
I remember the GC used to send out newsletters via email (may still do) about how they justified their own existence.
They used to have bullet points of things they were doing. I’ll always remember when they thought it was worth telling everyone how they had confiscated an unlicensed fobt machine (singular) from a Chinese takeaway on the high street in Manchester. They are the easy ones and they think they are wins? Having a property in this country with registered owners, where the public physically go in and there being a physical machine to confiscate. How are they going to tackle state encouraged Russian online groups flooding emails of people actively wanting to bet? They arn’t, because they’ll argue they arn’t under their remit as they arn’t licensed  For the I’ll informed, hacking attacks are common and the defence against them are always on the back foot. The Russian state are known to be behind many of them and the liberal elite here seem to think outlawing people here won’t encourage a whole new front of external disruption. The naivety is astounding. |
|
By:
I'll just share my experience this week with W.H. with you all.
Unbeknown to me I had a monthly deposit limit attached to my account of a grand, it's an account I use mainly for trap challenges and occasionally rugby union, so not a key account as such. I went over this in this month and that was because I use Hills to do placepots now as I've previously mentioned, tote plus put me on the naughty step. So after initial dialogue of "show me this, that and t'other" I said no I'm never ever going to comply with anything like that and I asked to speak to the decision maker at Hills and he engaged very readily and was really decent actually when I had been expecting just another drone spouting the company line. After looking at my net deposits from 2006, which was - £247.32, I wasn't aware of this btw, he said he'd get back to me later that afternoon. Which he did and he said, wait 24 hours and refresh the limit message in the account which I did yesterday. He changed it to £5K per month for me and that was that. All very reasonable and civilised from start to finish, which was nice! |
|
By:
why did the Tote put you on the naughty step?
|
|
By:
It can be absolutely guaranteed that there is no correlation with affordability checks enforced by the operators and problem gambling. The only reason they are being done is as a veneer to the public (and establishment) that seeks to make it look like they care. I'm not really on social media, has anyone seen any gambler complaining publicly that they have been prevented from playing bingo or slots because they have not completed an affordability check requirement?
The technology exists through machine learning etc to automatically detect the vast majority of problem gambling and suspend ops on the accounts affected. Obviously, the operators have absolutely no interest in doing that. |
|
By:
CLYDEBANK, I lost a fair bit at Glorious Goodwood last year which obviously raised a red flag. They did relent on deposits for a while afterwards but then changed their minds and wanted documentation to which I said, nah that's not happening any time soon and that was game over.
|
|
By:
cheers Slippy
|
|
By:
Cider - nobody wants to address the truth of your 13:37 post - because it doesn't align with their view that the communists are to blame!
 |
|
By:
I have seen the reality of it yes, a chap on social media called Hyperlinx documents his affordability problems when ONLY playing online slots.
Its a fallacious argument saying bookies shut sportsbettors down unilaterally. |
|
By:
Dustybin I watch Hypalinx. He definitely has a radio voice IMO. What I like about his style is, he doesn't promote gambling websites and adverts etc, and is using his only money. He has gone on a journey with gambling, that's for sure!
|
|
By:
Thats right Trident.
He does use his own money and seems a genuine person who looks to make his money from crypto trading. The others are just fronts who promote slots betting from common knowledge. |
|
By:
Just looked at a video titled 'Gambling Log 2021 and Half Way Through 2022'. Someone publicly advertising a loss of £44K in a single year wasn't exactly the typical gambler I had in mind. No idea of the chap's background or resources, but after listening to a few minutes of his commentary on the vid, sounds like an addict, so shouldn't have an account, never mind an affordability check. On the edge of doing the lot. Maybe he has the means to lose at that kind if level as he's high net worth or pays for it from being an 'influencer'.
|
|
By:
Unless he changed his mind and started taking payment from youtube (which I doubt because they dont tend to do that for his type of channel) then he doesnt make money from his hobby, nor does he sell advertising.
He just has always been into that type of gambling, bandits etc and buys them for his property. He would be the first to admitt he has gambling issues but he's sensible enough to keep it in check from what I understand. He also has a drinking problem, smokes and eats a terrible diet. But these are the freedoms of choice |
|
By:
The gambling commission never listen to what we have to say so dont bother trying to engage them in debate
Whats the point engaging in debate with someone when theyve already made their minds up.. |
|
By:
It's an atypical example though, dusty. It's actually a pretty good idea to AC him as he will inevitably talk about it publicly.
I was thinking along the lines of that owner on Luck on Sunday. Retired, of significant means, and spending the odd £50 now and again on bingo with a long history of similar betting, suddenly being AC'd. Not someone with a public profile, showing themselves doing 44 bags in a year. |
|
By:
You are picking out a narrative from the little you know of the guy.
If you watched more of his life you will see that the providers are many and generally have no idea he has a channel, the approach they use on him is the same they would to anyone. And because he has a wide bredth of accounts he never does his brains in one website entirely...his losses include physical bandit in pubs and clubs as well. |
|
By:
He has documented all of the mentioned problems at some point or another, from not being allowed his winnings to being limited on deposits.
He doesnt have a particularly large following either, he's just an ordinary guy who happened to have made a few quid from cyrpto. |
|
By:
56K subs on yt isn't ordinary. But as I stated, wasn't the type of casual low stakes, under the radar player I had in mind when I posed the question.
|
|
By:
The point I am making is that its false to assume/declare bookies dont close down slots/casino players to the detriment of sports betting.
Thats the first Ive heard of 56k, he's been going years and been struggling to deposit for years and the P/L ive seen in the past havnt been close to that figure. |