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:
If I lose a grand today, and they ask me to
prove I can afford to lose it, and I provide proof... where is the next level of protection for me If I become a problem gambler? Will they give me a gambling credit rating, and share that with other bookies? Sounds dreadful if that's the end plan. |
|
By:
What if you like backing long-on shots on here. eg. £1000 to win £100. Nothing like high roller stuff. You could be winning over time but just one loser and they are asking about your income.
|
|
By:
Yes and no Dave.
If I can prove I can afford the grand loss, what next. The legal case absolves them of future responsibility. Of course the legislation or full code may cover that and define what is going on. |
|
By:
If I'm Wayne Rooney, or Phil Mickelson when do
I fall foul of becoming a problem gambler? |
|
By:
...Or if you are 20k up over 3months but 1k down over 24 hours?
Would they even have the audacity to ask? |
|
By:
doesn't matter if you won a million the day before. lose £1000 that's the trigger
|
|
By:
The legal case absolves them of future responsibility
That legal case is irrelevant. Anyone who goes to court saying I didn't think the bookmaker wanted all my money is always going to be laughed at. The only thing that matters is the GC edicts. I rather suspect that the credit agency ones will be rolling and repeat every time a threshold is breached. The manual ones would probably lead to some sort of loss limit, but god knows how that will work. |
|
By:
howard • April 28, 2023 1:48 PM BST
doesn't matter if you won a million the day before. lose £1000 that's the trigger lol anyone who wins a mill and is gambling next day def has problems. |
|
By:
howard • April 28, 2023 1:48 PM BST
doesn't matter if you won a million the day before. lose £1000 that's the trigger Its not specified yet, the emphasis is on 'appropriate' and for the comapy to use what they know about you. How could they possibly defend carring out such action as being 'appropriate' under those circumstances? Its disproportionate. |
|
By:
The Terms of Reference dictate...
- ensure there is appropriate balance between consumer freedoms and choice on the one hand, and prevention of harm to vulnerable groups and wider communities on the other. |
|
By:
What is vulnerable or harmful about being 19K up instead of 20K?
|
|
By:
dusty - you can't seem to grasp that businesses put processes in place to cater for the majority of their customers and not for you.
|
|
By:
These companies require a license. The GC have the remit provided by the Secretary of State to act within the directions of the Government directions.
|
|
By:
Whatever you have won one day even several hundred thousands is just one account. You could have lost more the same day elsewhere. Or spent it on something else. This is their thinking. Not saying I agree with it.
"lol anyone who wins a mill and is gambling next day def has problems." Rico ? |
|
By:
Cider, I agree with most of what you said: It was nobody else's fault that you lost a lot of money that time at Royal Ascot. You were right not to blame anyone else. At that point you had 4 choices:
1) To make yourself better at gambling and carry on in the hope of wining in the future with a more disciplined approach. 2) Carry on gambling haphazardly in the (less likely, but still possible) hope of winning in the future. 3) Quitting gambling and doing something else in your life, without blaming anyone but your self. 4) Remain in denial and blame everyone (but yourself) for the mess you have got yourself into. As I see it, choices 1, 2 and 3 are all reasonable and you chose 1 which is what I would do. But choice 4 is pathetic and is typical of the attitude of the whingers that we have in this country today. |
|
By:
@ dusty they will read what the GC gives them and implement it. They will not be fined or lose their licence if they do that.
|
|
By:
The GC arnt beyond reproach, like I said they are answerable to the SoS.
|
|
By:
anyone on 50k salary that loses £1000 twice in one week big danger of having account closed imo
|
|
By:
What have been set out thus far are guidelines.
The specifics will have to be determined over the next year. But at present people are drawing their own conclusions to how it will be implemented. |
|
By:
dusty you will have your opportunity to commment on the proposed regs. The key issue is that people with a separate sum of money for gambling (whether as a result of previous winning or not) should be allowed to use that money as they please. A lot of pressure will have to be exerted to make them include that in their regs.
|
|
By:
If you declare money won from gambling then
good luck getting an account with a new bookie |
|
By:
Indeed. Whatever happens in the discussions in the months ahead, the main outline of the new proposals are pretty much established. Specific price guidelines will be set, and if you 'transgress' one of them, you'll be forced to prove how much you can lose. They revolve entirely around the idea that you should only be betting amounts that your salary justifies. The concept of building a bankroll and then raising your stakes in line with your increased pot is totally absent, and I really can't see that any of the bodies involved will be interested in introducing that.
|
|
By:
My personal view is that there are enough things going against this country at present; the stock market/financial sector is losing its onus and companies are openly rejecting it for the US markets, Microsoft have latterly claimed Britain not open for business after the Mergers block and that they will be focussing on EU, and Suella Braverman seems to me to be a type of person who wont appease the woke scaremongering in Parliament.
People here seriously need to be contacting their MPs |
|
By:
If you wanted to see just how ridiculous this whole thing really is you need go no further than, in a bid to try and protect potential problem and "budding" problem gamblers they did not see it fit to do anything toward addressing advertising of the product, so all the sporting idols et al that impressionable youngsters are watching day in day out can still be adorned in the very thing they are supposed to be protected from
 |
|
By:
The concept of building a bankroll and then raising your stakes in line with your increased pot is totally absent, and I really can't see that any of the bodies involved will be interested in introducing that.
Well if they refuse then maybe we should crowdfund for judicial review on basis of transgressing the HRA. |
|
By:
And dusty, Braverman would laugh at you to your face.
|
|
By:
Idont think she would, Ive seen what she has written on a number of subjects that have basis in this woke generation of anti everything conservative.
|
|
By:
The white paper estimated a shrinkage of 14% of the online market (which I think looks small) and the Times today estimates the cost of enforcing checks with Levy will amount to around 8% of company profits.
This proposal will be much harder hitting the sector than they like to have you believe. |
|
By:
It would be impossible to get the Govt to change the main philosophy of the white paper. The only thing that might possibly work (and I would say 'possibly' in very dubious tones) is to offer some sort of alternative mode that we could opt into rather than being subject to affordability checks. Maybe revolving around the idea that we would only be allowed to deposit a few times a year, and then with relatively small amounts - £50 or £100 a time. And perhaps with the extra safeguard that you can't deposit if your monthly P+L is negative. (So if you went off on tilt, you would have to wait at least a month for your P+L to reset to zero before redepositing, thus breaking the addiction cycle.)
Or perhaps the account might be automatically frozen for a week or two if you lose a certain percentage of your bank. (Say 25% or something.) There are so many alternative systems which would stop out-of-control lunatics from running up four-figure losses while giving more serious types the freedom to try and build their bank as they see fit. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have put forwards the viewpoint of the gamblers themselves. |
|
By:
It would be useful if you could request a check up front, and get a limit, at least you'd know where you stand.
The info required should be the same for every provider, and they should have enough staff for say a 48hr turnaround. Won't happen of course. The worst possible thing is to get your account suspended half way through something your involved in on here, a nightmare and potentially very costly, if the customer service is as slow as it is now. |
|
By:
the bookie profits will keep increasing you can be sure of that
|
|
By:
the bookie profits will keep increasing you can be sure of that
Not from the British market it wont.(unless cash in shop compensates) The Economist reported on Betfair not long ago, its turnover in the very market it started in is diminishing and was then only representing 40% of the total now. A few individuals have written up luke warm acceptance of the proposals, but only because they want the share price to hold up, the reality is they couldnt careless about this country now, if it goes tits up they will say told you so and ceeya |
|
By:
kevinglass • April 28, 2023 3:13 PM BST
It would be useful if you could request a check up front, and get a limit, at least you'd know where you stand Could you check if I'm a witch, Mr Hopkins? |
|
By:
they'll offer worse odds to compensate. flutter customers are already content backing football prices in running at 8/1 when its 16/1 on here. don't think they will mind taking 7s or 6s. the extra place each way 'offer' skybet started a few yrs back must make them a fortune. pp seem to be taking bog off a new track every day. they have all tricks up their sleeves
|
|
By:
I think there has to some checks to stop people who are defrauding their workplace,remember Graham Price who ran a Halifax branch agency leaving an IOU for £ 7 million in the safe, mostly done on horse racing.Anyone winning should not have any checks at all and should be allowed to carry on as normal.When the books get someone like Terry Ramsden they fight over who can get every penny of them,they cannot be trusted to see if someone is gambling with their own money.
|
|
By:
There’s a major grey area here…
Antepost bets |
|
By:
140 million on a 4 hour cricket match.
|
|
By:
does this white paper only apply to only british customers of british bookies or does it apply to ALL customers (irish based customers of betfair?) of british bookies?
|
|
By:
these new rules only affect punters that lose.it will not affect betfair punters because they all win.
 |
|
By:
Been Laying on here every day for 20 years and would be surprised if Betfair asked me to prove anything after having a track record
like this. Had a dire year last year, and got a gentle email from them after bad results, but nothing else. Surely the length of time someone has been on here must prove that they do have some common sense and control. |