|
By:
Yes, it could go to court under HRA, but we have to get them to address the issue. If they say that savings/former winnings don't count, then it is actionable, but if they aren't forced to address the issue, that won't happen.
|
|
By:
If people hadnt already realised-traditional gambling is dead.
You can not survive doing that under these conditions. You HAVE to hedge/trade your position incrementally |
|
By:
The states has been opening up for the past 15 years andis not any nearer to actually happening. Re exchanges, they need winners or the business model fails..
|
|
By:
Lifetime profit figure doesn't mean that you've still got that money though, it's history, all it shows is that you have had the ability to generate profit, if they give it any credence they are basically saying that they will give that player a pass and simply assume that whatever contributed to that player's aility to generate profit is still a "thing" and that isn't what they will do.
|
|
By:
The states are, Britain only account for 40% of turnover now.
Its california they all waiting for |
|
By:
So people who just use one company are more at risk of getting into trouble than a person who bets the same amounts across a variety of companies.
|
|
By:
Keep your balances high people..
that doesn't matter under these proposals - it's losses not deposits. But that depends on what the punishment is for failing or ignoring an affordability check. If it's a £100 monthly limit on deposits, then you maintaining a high balance will keep you in the game. But if the punishment is having your account closed, then a high balance would indeed make no difference. Worst case: they close your account and freeze your balance, and you have to go to court to fight to get it back. I know that sounds insane, but so would all of this back in those happy days when they were still distracted by FOBTs. |
|
By:
duffy, it states they have to respond apropriately on what they know of a customer....to see if they are in financial distress.
If you have a history (how history?) of winning and or have capital, then you aint in distress and they have a responsibility to allow you to bet. |
|
By:
dustybin, please understand before one of us dies, companies don't write processes for the 5%, and particularly the 5% who they don't make any money from.
|
|
By:
It will come down to the subjective meaning of 'appropriate'.
The government will not want people showing the fact their moves made enterprise trigger happy in stopping bettors when those bettors show they are of comfortable means. Think you will find dave Im on about succesful people paying PC They make plenty out of PC I promise you |
|
By:
Ive already conceded people without money or a history of winning (therefore paying PC) are in trouble under these proposals
|
|
By:
I'm sure BF will leave the big players alone. And the smaller unsuccessful players will still be milked. (The White Paper is going to encourage casinos to start offering sports betting, and will be handing out large numbers of licenses to make sure that the poor neglected casino industry gets back on its feet! I can see that one ending well for the poor and needy..)
The moderately successful ones in the middle will be the ones who get escorted to the door. |
|
By:
Its a simple equation really, keep winning and no issues whatsoever.
|
|
By:
Think you will find dave Im on about succesful people paying PC
They make plenty out of PC I promise you They make nothing out of people paying PC. They simply lose less. An online gambling company only measures it success by looking at how much of customers' deposits end up in its coffers. |
|
By:
That may be true if you win very big or win very small, Switchy. But it sure won't help the ones in the middle.
|
|
By:
They're surely making plenty out of the ones who churn big-time to try and avoid PC
|
|
By:
Dave having third parties inputting liquidity and trading prices creates more pportunity for others to get matched which increases turnover in commission.
Its money that wouldnt get matched by them alone. You are basing your assumption that the exchange is just punters v paddy money, thats a conspiracy made by losers |
|
By:
It is the extension of allowing free enterprise to create more enterprise, thats a good thing....or at least it used to be before the world went totally mad.
|
|
By:
The ones in the middle pay more charges as a % of gross profit than PC payers - break even better pay 100% of their profit in charges.
|
|
By:
All I can see that if these proposals come in,liquidity on here will be way down,which means trying to get your bet matched will be near impossible,this will mean the end for exchanges.
|
|
By:
dustybin • April 27, 2023 2:33 PM BST
Dave having third parties inputting liquidity and trading prices creates more pportunity for others to get matched which increases turnover in commission. What has that got to do with anything? If these third parties were doing a good job from BF's pov they would be losing a little bit and those that took their bets also losing a little bit. |
|
By:
The operating cost per player on the exchange is 20%
If you pay PC at HR you pay 40/50/60% towards the bottomline Its irrelevant that there are people who churn more to profit ratio. There are also plenty who do little other than lose and vanish. As is observed in the States hprse racing rackets. As punters options diminish so does the overall liquidity, until such time the think collapses totally. |
|
By:
dustybin 27 Apr 23 14:19
duffy, it states they have to respond apropriately on what they know of a customer....to see if they are in financial distress. If you have a history (how history?) of winning and or have capital, then you aint in distress and they have a responsibility to allow you to bet. Ok then, does that means that the days of players being restricted to only being allowed to get 27p on a bet are at an end providing they are not in financial distress or are a winner, which by only being allowed to have 27p on suggests that they have a clue, all that is over with is it, no chance IMO, they'll carry all this on and if you want to take them to court over it, fill your boots....which only a microscopic amount of players will do anyway. |
|
By:
This paper duffy is the government's response to a number of things that have been applied on subjective guessing.
It should, as bills in parliament are intended to create law that is followed by enterprise. We shall see how it plays out, Im simply stating on what they have put you have a case to take the position further if you fall into their net. |
|
By:
There aren't going to be much in the way of new laws, certainly no laws on affordability - thats just going to be GC consultation and regs.
|
|
By:
Yes, I am just saying that IMO the books will continue to target precisely who they want to get rid of, I've been under the opinion from day 1 that they have used all this as a means to get rid of who they have wanted rid of under the ruse of player welfare, I've often said that it would have been interesting to see the disparity between sports book players vs casino players targeted and I don't think for one second that the books would be concerned about facing a challenge from anyone they want rid of should they restrict them.
|
|
By:
Im really refering to the exchange model as we are on an exchange forum, and to those restrictions that seem to have overarching caveats that allow for a more subjective outcome on a case by case basis based on personal position.
Im actually surprised to have seen a section being brought about regarding consumer regress and dispute. All this time I had criticised the whole argument of those backing change on the basis that no of the advocates ever mentioned helping bettors with disputes. Perhaps they are. |
|
By:
Be interesting to see how books with net and course operations, Banks and Benny K for example, go about things. Will they let you bet across the breadth of their sports books on course, on a day to day basis, without these checks coming into play?
|
|
By:
They don't care - the ombudsman bit is very vague and structured towards problem gambling. 90%+ of GC licensees take your money with them if they go bust, nothing about that. Betfair are now HQ'd in Dublin - anyone sure where you sue them should you require to do so?
|
|
By:
"The Tories’ war on gambling is a win for the nanny state"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-gambling-white-paper-is-a-win-for-the-nanny-state/ These checks on people’s background and income are so heavy-handed, they seem like the kinds of rules a government might usher in if the country suffered from a widespread gambling epidemic. But the UK doesn’t – not even close. Today’s white paper update raises a pressing question once again: what exactly is the point of the Tory party if it’s going to cave to moral panic? From sugar taxes to plain packaging on cigarettes, we have yet another nannying intervention from the Conservative party that seems to be lacking in any meaningful kind of evidence. Meanwhile they seem totally blind to the unintended consequences that might arise, including pushing the minority of gamblers with a real problem into the hands of criminals. |
|
By:
Apologies if already posted but can’t read all this
Has there been any mention of betting shops,on course bookmakers and on course tote ? |
|
By:
It's a good question jim. I listened to the speech on parliament channel and there didn't seem to be any strategy on cash betting. Didn't want to hurt bingo halls/social lives etc ! All about the evil of smartphones and online betting. This is one of the reasons this is such bull. How can you go mad and lose your house on track yet only be allowed to deposit buttons here ?
|
|
By:
the affordability stuff is all about online. There are mumblings about monitoring play and cashless betting on slots, but can't see anything at all about affordability and sports/horse betting B+M establishments.
|
|
By:
Good piece George.
|
|
By:
So the argument about backing horses can have some skill involved wasn’t thought relevant when bingo isn’t affected.
Thanks for the reply Howard |
|
By:
What about the thousands of addicts the national lottery has created, we've all seem them standing outside the post office with reams of scratch cards!!
|
|
By:
Also those big buildings that have fruit machines by the seaside for people to spend all day and night in
|
|
By:
It certainly is GB. The current Conservative Party is in name only. They're basically the Labour Party. I mean, how did it even get to this stage when you read & digest the actual facts of "problem gambling" in this country.
A report from the IEA’s Christopher Snowdon in 2021 found that problem gambling has not budged since records began in 1999: not at 60 per cent, or 6 per cent – but in fact 0.6 per cent of the population. In the past two years, this number has fallen further, down to 0.3 per cent. Despite the UK developing one of the largest regulated gambling sectors, worth an estimated £14 billion, its number of problem gamblers remains well below the global average. This is in spite of all the digital changes (and easier access) to the industry in recent years. |
|
By:
Good article from the Spectator there, and definitely well worth a read.
|
|
By:
The horse racing authorities ought to be taken out and shot. When their sport is only a small part of what itself isn't a particularly massive problem, it's criminal that they haven't fought much harder to get exclusions for the people who bet on racing. As if the sport doesn't already have a huge number of problems..
|