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:
amonsgt the garbage ,youve got to ask what underground bookies would take bets from supposedly the games winners and like in episode of minder after saying gambling goes in runs of months,how many punters would trust an underground bookie to take their months of losing bets and stay around to pay out on a winning run
|
|
By:
For years bookmakers have employed algorithms to spot potential winners and restrict them accordingly. Why oh why can't an industry standard algorithm be employed to identify problem gamblers and manage them accordingly. A simple, cheap solution that would save all this bother. Staggering that this idea hasn't been adopted by the GC...
|
|
By:
Frazer speaking now on the white paper in Parliament.
|
|
By:
Hasnt got a scoobie has she....
 |
|
By:
As I've stated many times before ''Organised Crime'' will fill the void !
Men will always want to back there judgement against others ! This kills ''The Levy'' for sure, therefore new way needed to fund horse racing ! |
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1ct5yEuVY
|
|
By:
^^^^^ Quite good !
 |
|
By:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-stakes-gambling-reform-for-the-digital-age/high-stakes-gambling-reform-for-the-digital-age
|
|
By:
At a moderate loss threshold (we propose either £125 net loss within a rolling month or £500 net loss within a rolling year), operators should conduct a financial vulnerability check, considering the types of open source indicators which many already routinely assess such as County Court Judgements, average postcode affluence, and declared bankruptcies. These checks should take seconds to process and would be frictionless for the consumer. We estimate only around 20% of accounts in a calendar year will trigger this check as most never lose this much gambling. Net loss means the loss of deposited money with a particular operator, and does not include the loss of restaked winnings from that operator.
|
|
By:
In line with the Commission’s advice, we propose that any account with net losses exceeding £1,000 in a rolling 24 hour period should be subject to an enhanced spending check which provides much greater insight into a customer’s financial situation by accessing more personalised data to consider factors like discretionary income. Such rapid losses are highly unusual and exceed the discretionary income nearly all people likely have available for a day’s activity, so are therefore highly indicative of risk.
|
|
By:
Unusually high losses over a period of weeks or months are also sufficiently indicative of risk to be worthy of thorough investigation. In line with their advice to this Review, the Commission will consult on a proposed threshold of £2,000 net loss within a rolling 90 day period to trigger the enhanced checks outlined in section ii above.
|
|
By:
You can watch the Commons debate on
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fbdaaf52-c1f9-4a50-9459-3c2eb4811f50 |
|
By:
so they're ok with you doing a grand in 1 day but only 2 grand in 90 days. Seems proportional.
|
|
By:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001lbl8
Some of the people I listened to here today made me feel very sad. I'm certain that bookmakers/casinos have done nothing to help some. |
|
By:
im pretty sure they were not forced to bet though..?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I'm ok with a soft check that you are betting within your means, but what info will they want, and will they have the admin staff to deal with it quickly.
I deposited £5k to boost my balance to bet at Aintree. The Betfair police knocked me to £1k max deposit a month, it must have been flagged, even though I run a £10k balance. I put the £5k back on Monday after the National. I asked what info they wanted to remove the £1k monthly limit, answer was vague, so I can't be bothered really. If they have checks, they need to be clear and transparent in ADVANCE, with a QUICK turnaround........ |
|
By:
I know this is a serious subject, but just look at Carolyn Harris pmsl Her and her front bench shadow welchie look like a hand wringers tag team |
|
By:
They don't seem to have considered pro gamblers or pensioners that supplement their income with gambling. All those can have zero or little other income relative to what they want to bet. If they have a million in the bank it doesn't count as income. Be interesting to hear what Veitch /Findlay have to say.
|
|
By:
I know this is a serious subject, but just look at Carolyn Harris pmsl
Well treat it like one. |
|
By:
Howard.. they dont believe there is such a person as a 'pro punter', therein lies the problem
|
|
By:
Harris is utterly class less, she looks like a drag kween from some rocky horror show
|
|
By:
Carloline Harris tells you all you need to know about this policy
|
|
By:
Harris trivialising how many hair colour changes she’s been through while waiting for the white paper
Sums her up |
|
By:
So this is all about one person is it? Or is that all you really care about?
|
|
By:
Some people on here just can't help themselves and it always goes back to the same old prejudices.
|
|
By:
average postcode affluence
There are only two houses in my postcode, and I haven't had a job for 32 years. If next-door loses hers, I'm screwed. Well, I'll be screwed anyway, the first time I lay a couple of horses to lose a monkey and they go and win. I'm in the same position as Joe Lampton above: I'm 61 now, and I'm reconciled to this ending very soon now. Fingers crossed I've won and saved enough to just about get by for the next 20 or 30 years, if necessary. Those years won't be much fun, but oh well. What memories! Off to Taunton this evening. Might be the last time. |
|
By:
Sparrow.. essentially yes. She is left of left and doesnt want anyone enjoying themselves or earning more than she does.
|
|
By:
Shut up sparrow ffs man
I’m highlighting the state of her and what makes her tick, the type she is and the errors she’s made I’ve made clear on here over the years Phillip Davis finally earning his corn |
|
By:
Switch , what about pensioners that don't smoke/ don't drink much / don't have a car /don't go on holidays /don't go to restaurants theatre cinema or football matches BUT want to gamble plenty of their pension ? I've just about described the future me btw.
|
|
By:
Her and the woke brigade have been relentlessly pursuing this agenda for 10 years. Mountain out of a molehill and wont stop those that want to bet from being able to. The difference being people won't know if they are going to get weighed out in the future.
|
|
By:
I'm quite happy to skirt around all this and do what is necessary whilst remaining under the radar , don't give them ammunition to classify professional punters ffs , i've enjoyed tax free earnings since 2007 and would like it to remain that way.
|
|
By:
If anyone listened to the shadow’s opening statement she went straight to protecting bingo halls ffs
The irony of the nanny state defending her own nannies fave pastimes bugger everyone else |
|
By:
I'm looking at the statistics for the National Gambling Treatment Service (as referenced by the white paper) and that makes for annoying reading. Of the people treated in 2021/2022, 49.8% had come from either slots or casino games. (No surprise there!) Only 8.2% had come from horse-racing, and a mere 1.8% from poker! 'Exchange' users made up only 3.6% Problem gamblers are only around 0.2% of the gambling community, according to the GC, so if you appply the NGTS figures to that, then horse-racing problem gamblers make up around 0.0164%, and poker players with a problem comprise just 0.0036% of all gamblers!!!
So why are we seeing such draconian measures placed on people who bet on the horses or poker, when they're a fairly small part of the gambling problem? By all means try and heavily restrict slots and casinos, if they're really intent on stopping people from being compulsive gamblers. But I'm not sure the white paper does a great deal about that - indeed, in my view, the proposals will make things much worse for those people.. And at the same time, it wrecks the pastime of many people who, with the odd exception, weren't a problem anyway!! |
|
By:
don't give them ammunition to classify professional punters ffs
This is why I wouldn't engage with affordability checks even if they weren't restricted to just income from employment. I don't want to get into a position where I'm arguing that my gambling winnings constitute a reliable, regular income. No way am I taking a risk of that 32-year-old can of worms being opened and inspected. |
|
By:
i,m not the brightest and i might be missing something
but if you lose a grand in the 1st hour of any given day isnt this white paper encouraging you to spend the next 23 hrs trying to win the grand back if you want to avoid any checks,that grand mkay have been your only intended bet of that day,week but you now might feel compelled to win it back in those 24hrs |
|
By:
I can't help feeling this is all a moral crusade. Society is littered with vulnerable people on a far greater scale. The alcoholics drain A&E and the ambulance service, the seriously mentally ill are sent back into the community, the homeless are ignored, the sick can't get to see a doctor, the disabled are forced to go back to work, the elderly can't afford to put the heating on.
This Conservative government, and those proceeding them, don't give a flying fuscia about the vulnerable. |
|
By:
Don't tell me to shut up dustbin. This is not particularly a left-right issue no matter how much some want to pretend it is. For the record I have stated numerous times that I am against affordability checks and other restrictions.
|
|
By:
This Conservative government, and those proceeding them, don't give a flying fuscia about the vulnerable. Im nearly there in line with your thinking too.
|
|
By:
But you try to crawl up my arse when Ive been the most consistant on here against all this nonsense you tit
As Ive said time and again, it is ideologically Left. If you dont understand that then go and read more on ideology. Harris is an embarrassment |