There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 493 comments are related to the topic:
Gambling white paper: Gamblers losing £1,000 a day to face checks
Gambling white paper: Gamblers losing £1,000 a day to face checks
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 493
|
By:
Just think of the wider circle of people you know. Almost all of them are f**king clueless about betting. MP's are f**king cluless and why oh why are families of people who've died due to gambling addiction (they say) allowed to have a large imput into this. They know nothing about it. Anyway have a listen to this Michell and Webb sketch on train safety...sums things up nicely of who should be ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CWbGG2DJ0 |
|
By:
Yeah don't they realise it's just like ( a seasonal ) business. After expenses many weeks/months the bottom line could be big losses but a profit for the year overall. And what if you have no other income ? Stop you running the business ?
|
|
By:
What if you are playing on different books/exchanges. Your nett position could be good but presumably if you are £2k down with any one entity you are going to get flagged ?
|
|
By:
2K over 90 days(£22) a day, slot and bingo small punters do that for fun
 I would bet some folk do that on lotteries a day with how many there are today. |
|
By:
I can also imagine lots of people reducing their stakes but betting a lot more frequently in order to try and make up the shortfall. So somebody who knows their sport well and has been making a decent living at it will suddenly be betting into the early hours on various other sports they know relatively little of. I can see that turning a few responsible bettors into desperate gamblers...
|
|
By:
but for the average punter im thinking a £125 loss? Is this per site? How the f**k does this work? What if i Win or lose playing online poker?
It will be per site to begin with, but the industry is discussing 'sharing' info on punters, so they almost certainly will be tied in at some point... |
|
By:
It would appear that the clowns responsible for the white paper have failed to differentiate between traditional betting and games of chance. That was racing's primary defence against the affordability checks. The big names in racing and the media came on board far too late, the case hasn't been argued strongly enough for long enough. Let's hope that if the detail of the white paper is as suggested by the headline restrictions people in racing and the media actually get off their backsides for a change and argue with conviction during any future consultations. And what is this £15 a spin for people of a certain age all about for the love of god? Utterly laughable.
|
|
By:
Campbell said 1130 they get the details
Not sure if that’s the statement in the house or they at bbc get the report. |
|
By:
One thing about this I have never understood is why solvent punters who are betting reasonably are so unwilling to submit financial details for checking.
Yes, checks are a terrible intrusion, but why are punters so bothered about bookies seeing their details? Every other organisation in this daft, muddled country can see your financial status if they care to. If you are a reasonable punter who wins, and according to this forum, almost all do, what is the concern then? |
|
By:
I presume it will get debated in Parliament for a while, there is hope it gets knocked back entirely, that does happen. But it’s in;ikely given the lack of knowledge in there today.
|
|
By:
Good write up Honky JOE (10-18) My thoughts entirely. Madness.
"The Lunatics (HOverave Taken The Asylum)" I see a clinic full of cynics Who want to twist the peoples' wrist They're watching every move we make We're all included on their list The lunatics have taken over the asylum The lunatics have taken over the asylum |
|
By:
There are some examples above that answer you question Knight
|
|
By:
I'm not sure you're right there Avi. It seems to me that the slots casinos etc. are being let off very lightly, while the skill-based betting is being hammered into the ground. Sounds very much like differentiation to me!! And completely the sort of differentiation the bookies think they want..
|
|
By:
Joe Lampton Like youve highlighted sums of money people gamble with is all relative. I remember growing up having £2.50 EW on a horse cheering it home at 10-1 and the feeling was utter delight. Same guy near me had £100 EW and Won. But we were both the same at the end of the day
 Stake doesnt matter as long as you bet within your budget. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I presume it will get debated in Parliament for a while
The debates will go on for a while, but I'd expect many of the bookies to start imposing these things straightaway. We know they've already started on affordability checks, and it'll be easy for them to ensure that, from this second on, they're in compliance with what they think the government inquiries will conclude. |
|
By:
Good vid joe. The bigger picture is cashless everything. Betting online and racecourse. And your spending on ice creams will be recorded.
|
|
By:
If you're prepared to go with any bookie you want, Trident, yeah.. Initially, at least.
You're rather screwed if you like the exchange model, though. |
|
By:
Thursday 27 April 2023
APR 27 2023 House Commons Location Main Chamber Oral questions Culture, Media and Sport (including Topical Questions) 9:30am Oral questions Church Commissioners and House of Commons Commission and Public Accounts Commission and Restoration and Renewal Client Board and Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission 10:10am Urgent question To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on arrangements in place to record the number of voters who attend at a polling station and are denied a vote because they are not in possession of valid ID - Mr Clive Betts Urgent question To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the war in Ukraine - John Healey Ministerial statement Gambling Act Review White Paper - Lucy Frazer |
|
By:
HonkyJoe
27 Apr 23 10:35 Joined: 20 Mar 12 I'm not sure you're right there Avi. You may be right Joe , they have differentiated but got it the wrong way round - anything is possible with this toilet of a Government  |
|
By:
If you are a reasonable punter who wins, and according to this forum, almost all do, what is the concern then?
I'd imagine the main issue is that your ability to continue is going to be tied in to your salary. So if you started betting a tenner or so a few years ago, and are now putting down a grand a time, you'll have to have a huge salary in order to continue doing that. As if having a good salary means you understand betting or vice versa. The size of your salary will mostly have little to do with whether you have the discipline and knowledge to bet sensibly or not. |
|
By:
Gambling Reform Statement expected in the House at 1200 hrs approx.
|
|
By:
After all my ranting, ive calmed down and started to rethink. Actually £125 is a large loss threshold.( for the majority of punters) And £2,000 over 90 days I expect the bookies/casinos are very pleased. Was £100 a month loss limit floating about........................
|
|
By:
The Knight. I've never actually had an affordability check so I'm only going off what people say. Likely I'll be getting one now and can show the funds in a bank account and no problem providing it. It's the income I'm worried about. Like a lot on here I'm just pleased that at least I've had a good 30 years doing this and was around to take full advantage when online betting started, where for a short period you could get plenty on. Gone from cash in shop, phone account and then internet. Could get larger sums on in the early 90's. If I never bet again I'd live but the £2K 3 monthly loss means it can never be more than a hobby unless required info provided.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Trident
27 Apr 23 10:46 Joined: 05 May 07 After all my ranting, ive calmed down and started to rethink. Actually £125 is a large loss threshold. Nonsense Trident. Full-time layers on here for example are going to break thresholds many times a day. Where is the liquidity going to come from if they don't pass the checks? £125 spread over an 8 race card, £15 a race - is that a large threshold? These limits are about as bad as they reasonably could have been. |
|
By:
Actually £125 is a large loss threshold
Really ! .....so you could not put on £200 on the Derby favourite or City to beat Madrid ..........without the risk of alarms going off. For many this will be the end ....and they won't be back.... |
|
By:
I assume loss is "net" loss?
|
|
By:
Joe Lampton....yes, you are correct. And that has been my point for almost 3 years since I had very early indication of what certain pressure groups wanted to do.
If checks are solely based on income, that is terribly wrong and would exclude a lot of retired people from betting amounts they can easily afford given their capital. My dismay over this increased when I asked certain bookies about their self-introduced affordability checks. Their attitude, and I suspect it was because they were so young with no realization of the amount of older people with a lot of capital who keep their income low so as to avoid as much tax as possible, was that only income counted. Capital MUST surely count as well, BUT, my point still stands. If affordability checks were based on both income and capital, then why should anyone solvent and legal who wants to bet reasonably and within their means object to a bookie seeing their financial details? And I have never been subject to affordability checks either. Indeed, of the few I know who have most are in pretty precarious financial situations anyway and should not really be betting in the amounts they do. |
|
By:
Everybody keeps talking about the £125 loss being the thing. Surely that's only to check whether you've had CCJs or bankruptcy orders against you? I'm assuming most sensible bettors would pass that with no further action being needed.
It's the £1,000 per day or £2,000 per 90-day period which will hit most people and lead to income assessments etc. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I did say "Most average stake punters" I was trying to think of a different perspective
I understand your liquidity point of view, though. |
|
By:
The Knight...Like you say if they look at the overall position I've no problem providing details. What you say is a concern re capital. It's crazy that you can be sitting on relatively large funds yet may fail a check. Regarding the trigger for checks, if there has to be one, it should be deposits (net) not losses.The detail will be in the implementation but my worry is the lack of knowledge of all this by the peope doing it. Net overall losses/deposits and overall financial position.
|
|
By:
Pro poker tournament players will have to leave the UK. They will utterly smash the thresholds month after month after month, then get a decent score. Many are also staked, which will presumably be stopped.
|
|
By:
Really we need a concerted effort to get the concept of a bankroll - a sum of money set aside for betting - accepted in the proposals.
|
|
By:
Surely if it's £125 pd, then a bookmaker could not even give you a £125 bets without checks?
|
|
By:
So if you build a bank up from say 500 to 10,000 , then have a bad run and lose a grand, you're going to have to earn an income from a job to continue with all your hard work. So much for freedom.
|
|
By:
as gamble is a gamble as in the word and like in business no one can pick a winner without picking lots of losers,the logic of this is no bookmaker should accept a bet of over £125,we no this is online but how could itv for example have gleeson and co boasting about starbet etc taking £100,000 bets,
or how can betting companies now show company results showing massive turnovers/profits proof of millions of losing bets,companies would either go bust or gov left to admit their policy isnt working ant be policed |
|
By:
If they really wanted to stop problem gamblers, deposit limits are surely a much better way around it. If they restrict people to one deposit per calendar month (or even every quarter) and insist that payments must be from a bank account (so there's no chance the money can come from credit), that would cut out most of the degenerates.
Alternatively, bettors could be restricted to losing only 10% of their bank a day, or something like that. Bettors come in different shapes and sizes, but degenerate gamblers are all the same. They're compulsive and they bet on event after event - often with bet sizes rising as their desperation and fury increase. Once they've gone through their bank, they immediately deposit more money and carry on with more of the same. And they'll often do that for days on end without really pausing. There are many ways in which you can stop those people from harming themselves while allowing others to continue to gamble happily. The approach being taken with this white paper is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it'll stop many sensible bettors while driving others to unregulated bookies, and degenerate gamblers will take advantage of the explosion of new smaller casinos that we're going to witness over the next few years. |
|
By:
dave1357
27 Apr 23 11:13 Joined: 05 Sep 10 Really we need a concerted effort to get the concept of a bankroll - a sum of money set aside for betting - accepted in the proposals. Excellent idea, although as you have said before human rights are being undermined here. Hopefully someone is waiting in the wings with a legal challenge and looking for the right moment to launch. |