Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Gamblers who are losing £1,000 a day are expected to face checks as part of new, tougher gambling regulations.
Sources say these will kick in when a gambler loses £1,000 in 24 hours , or £2,000 over 90 days. How these will be carried out is as yet unclear.
Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer, who will outline the plans in Parliament later, says the rise of smartphones means "now there's a Las Vegas on every phone".
Ms Frazer said her "balanced" proposal would still let people enjoy a flutter.
(Ha bloody ha)
The announcement of what the government's white paper actually contains has been delayed at least four times, since the review of gambling laws was first announced by Oliver Dowden, then culture secretary, in 2020.
Since then, there have been regular reports of individual cases of problem gamblers - but the government's solution has been crafted by three different culture secretaries and three prime ministers without seeing the light of day.
Now Ms Frazer believes she has a proposal that is suitable for the digital age.
Writing in the Times, she says: "The internet and the rise of the smartphone means gambling is ubiquitous, not just on the high street but everywhere and anywhere, providing round-the-clock access to betting."
Describing the "maze" of sports betting, virtual slot machines, roulette wheels and blackjack tables instantly available on many apps, she added: "Many enjoy these features - but within their means, infrequently or on particular event - but sadly we know this does not apply to everyone."
She pointed out that, for those who become addicted, their smartphone becomes a trapdoor to despair - and said that the government's new approach would "protect the most vulnerable, but not get in the way of the majority of people who want to have a flutter"
.
One of the proposals that is known about is a mandatory levy to be imposed on gambling firms, to be used to pay for addiction treatment and research.
But it is not yet clear how that funding will be managed.
Reform campaigners and gambling companies we have spoken to believe there will not be much change around advertising and marketing.
That will be a big disappointment to campaigners who feel it is now endemic in sport.
Other planned changes have been strongly welcomed by parliamentarians who have lobbied for reform.
Lord Foster, chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, said they were "an important step in the right direction".
Conservative MP, Ian Duncan Smith, vice chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling Related Harm said they will "make sure we hold the government's feet to the fire to ensure these measures are implemented swiftly"
Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Lucy Frazer leaves 10 Downing Street, London, after a Cabinet meeting ahead of the Budget
IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA
Image caption,
Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer will unveil the government's white paper on gambling on Thursday
The white paper is expected to include the introduction of affordability checks to protect problem gamblers.
The government is also expected to consult on introducing stake limits for online slot bets - the digital version of the old slot machines.
It is thought the range will be from £2 to £15, with suggestions of a lower level for those under 25.
Some gambling firms including Flutter, which owns Paddy Power, SkyBet and Betfair, imposed slot limits of £10 from September 2021.
The compulsory levy on gambling firms is expected to be 1% of net revenue and could raise £140 million a year for education, treatment and research.
At the moment, the levy is voluntary and the money is not put into the NHS - which has not wanted to accept it, for ethical reasons.
The NHS has expanded its gambling-specific services in recent years.
The plan, we understand, would be to use some of the money raised from the new levy for NHS treatment in future.
Man with glasses in front of online casino slot machine
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Online slot games are designed to mimic slot machines in betting shops
We also believe the white paper will relax some rules on land-based casinos to level the playing field between physical and online betting.
At the moment, for example, smaller casinos have limits on how many machines they can have. The number is expected to increase from 20 to 80.
A spokesperson for the DCMS said "We are determined to protect those most at risk of gambling-related harm including young and vulnerable people".
Annie Ashton's husband Luke killed himself in 2021 after struggling with a gambling addiction, losing money online.
"We're just waiting for the government to put in some regulations so that it can make it safer for people who do decide to gamble," Mrs Ashton said.
"This white paper has taken far too long. Any changes that are made need to be focused on preventing suicides and harm."
The Betting and Gaming Council Chief Executive Michael Dugher told the BBC they have worked closely with government.
"We want to see balanced, proportionate and effective reforms... whilst not spoiling the enjoyment of the overwhelming majority who bet perfectly safely and responsibly.
"Changes should also help to protect jobs and the economic contribution made by the world-leading UK regulated industry".
---------------------
£2,000 over 90 days
SHE/They - patently do NOT understand HORSE RACING Betting....
Unless - it is just - "a flutter" - on such as the National.
Sources say these will kick in when a gambler loses £1,000 in 24 hours , or £2,000 over 90 days. How these will be carried out is as yet unclear.
Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer, who will outline the plans in Parliament later, says the rise of smartphones means "now there's a Las Vegas on every phone".
Ms Frazer said her "balanced" proposal would still let people enjoy a flutter.
(Ha bloody ha) The announcement of what the government's white paper actually contains has been delayed at least four times, since the review of gambling laws was first announced by Oliver Dowden, then culture secretary, in 2020.
Since then, there have been regular reports of individual cases of problem gamblers - but the government's solution has been crafted by three different culture secretaries and three prime ministers without seeing the light of day.
Now Ms Frazer believes she has a proposal that is suitable for the digital age.
Writing in the Times, she says: "The internet and the rise of the smartphone means gambling is ubiquitous, not just on the high street but everywhere and anywhere, providing round-the-clock access to betting."
Describing the "maze" of sports betting, virtual slot machines, roulette wheels and blackjack tables instantly available on many apps, she added: "Many enjoy these features - but within their means, infrequently or on particular event - but sadly we know this does not apply to everyone."
She pointed out that, for those who become addicted, their smartphone becomes a trapdoor to despair - and said that the government's new approach would "protect the most vulnerable, but not get in the way of the majority of people who want to have a flutter"
.One of the proposals that is known about is a mandatory levy to be imposed on gambling firms, to be used to pay for addiction treatment and research.
But it is not yet clear how that funding will be managed.
Reform campaigners and gambling companies we have spoken to believe there will not be much change around advertising and marketing.
That will be a big disappointment to campaigners who feel it is now endemic in sport.
Other planned changes have been strongly welcomed by parliamentarians who have lobbied for reform.
Lord Foster, chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, said they were "an important step in the right direction".
Conservative MP, Ian Duncan Smith, vice chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling Related Harm said they will "make sure we hold the government's feet to the fire to ensure these measures are implemented swiftly"
Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Lucy Frazer leaves 10 Downing Street, London, after a Cabinet meeting ahead of the Budget
IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA
Image caption,
Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer will unveil the government's white paper on gambling on Thursday
The white paper is expected to include the introduction of affordability checks to protect problem gamblers.
The government is also expected to consult on introducing stake limits for online slot bets - the digital version of the old slot machines.
It is thought the range will be from £2 to £15, with suggestions of a lower level for those under 25.
Some gambling firms including Flutter, which owns Paddy Power, SkyBet and Betfair, imposed slot limits of £10 from September 2021.
The compulsory levy on gambling firms is expected to be 1% of net revenue and could raise £140 million a year for education, treatment and research.
At the moment, the levy is voluntary and the money is not put into the NHS - which has not wanted to accept it, for ethical reasons.
The NHS has expanded its gambling-specific services in recent years.
The plan, we understand, would be to use some of the money raised from the new levy for NHS treatment in future.
Man with glasses in front of online casino slot machine
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Online slot games are designed to mimic slot machines in betting shops
We also believe the white paper will relax some rules on land-based casinos to level the playing field between physical and online betting.
At the moment, for example, smaller casinos have limits on how many machines they can have. The number is expected to increase from 20 to 80.
A spokesperson for the DCMS said "We are determined to protect those most at risk of gambling-related harm including young and vulnerable people".
Annie Ashton's husband Luke killed himself in 2021 after struggling with a gambling addiction, losing money online.
"We're just waiting for the government to put in some regulations so that it can make it safer for people who do decide to gamble," Mrs Ashton said.
"This white paper has taken far too long. Any changes that are made need to be focused on preventing suicides and harm."
The Betting and Gaming Council Chief Executive Michael Dugher told the BBC they have worked closely with government.
"We want to see balanced, proportionate and effective reforms... whilst not spoiling the enjoyment of the overwhelming majority who bet perfectly safely and responsibly.
"Changes should also help to protect jobs and the economic contribution made by the world-leading UK regulated industry".
---------------------
£2,000 over 90 days
SHE/They - patently do NOT understand HORSE RACING Betting....
Unless - it is just - "a flutter"
- on such as the National.
Show More
If this is how they are planning on doing the £2k 90 days thing then anyone half serious will have no option but to give up or allow the bookmaker full access to view your bank through open banking.
Very intrusive but possibily worth it for the Tote and Betfair Exchange - although many will not be able to prove actual income to the levels required.
That's another of the really stupid aspects to this. Most of the people who have built up a bank to the point where they can play big stakes will have taken a professional attitude towards their betting, and it'll probably be their passion. They almost certainly won't be combining that kind of dedication with a highly-paid job that gives them the kind of income needed to justify their bigger stakes. So that's probably them gone.
On the other hand, there will be plenty of lawyers, doctors etc. chucking away silly money, and the new guidelines will probably wave many of those people through if they agree to share their financial details with the bookies. Arguably those types are more likely to become the problem gamblers, but the guidelines will be fine with them.. The whole thing is very poorly conceived from the govt side, but good news for the betting firms.
Very intrusive but possibily worth it for the Tote and Betfair Exchange - although many will not be able to prove actual income to the levels required.
That's another of the really stupid aspects to this. Most of the people who have built up a bank to the point where they can play big stakes will have taken a professional attitude towards their betting, and it'll probably be their passion. They almost certainly won't be combining that kind of dedication with a highly-paid job that gives them the kind of income needed to justify their bigger stakes. So that's probably them gone.
On the other hand, there will be plenty of lawyers, doctors etc. chucking away silly money, and the new guidelines will probably wave many of those people through if they agree to share their financial details with the bookies. Arguably those types are more likely to become the problem gamblers, but the guidelines will be fine with them.. The whole thing is very poorly conceived from the govt side, but good news for the betting firms.
Disagree HonkyJoe.. anyone who can evidence that punting is their sole income will be able to carry on as before. I can see that they will go down taxing these professionals accordingly though
Been a massive overeaction to this, was speaking to a few people high up in purple who seem to think that any balance already in play will not be restricted if shown to have solely come from activity with that company etc...
That would be good if that's true, but if so, we need to have actual clarification of that. Until people can be sure that incurring a £1,000 loss in a day won't make them subject to affordability checks (that in many cases would lead to dramatically reduced stakes) as long as their activity has only been with that company, they won't be able to take the risk. Once the checks have been raised against you, you're screwed.
Quite a few on the forum claim to have already been subjected to affordability checks. It would be good to know how many of them felt they had lost money from recent deposits etc.
That would be good if that's true, but if so, we need to have actual clarification of that. Until people can be sure that incurring a £1,000 loss in a day won't make them subject to affordability checks (that in many cases would lead to dramatically reduced stakes) as long as their activity has only been with that company, they won't be able to take the risk. Once the checks have been raised against you, you're screwed.
Quite a few on the forum claim to have already been subjected to affordability checks. It would be good to know how many of them felt they had lost money from recent deposits etc.
anyone who can evidence that punting is their sole income will be able to carry on as before
Where on earth does that come from???
Where on earth does that come from???
Because otherwise there will be no industry left at all. What happens if a bookmaker standing at Taunton on a tuesday afternoon wants to lay a bet for more than 1k liability..? He will be able to lay that bet because he is licenced to do so, I'll bet 1.01 that eventually full time exchange users will be able to carry on as they were but will be licenced accordingly.
Now wheres that switch, even if you are correct (and I hope you are) about lifetime P and L being a protector from affordability checks the exchange liquidty will accelerate from the current slow steady decline and fall into the abyss. So it won't be worth bothering even if you are unrestricted.
Thats the point that really is difficult, its been getting to paultry levels for a while now, one would imagine a new business model will be found. Or i guess spreadbetting will see plenty of people return as they operate under different regulation I believe..?
Cider 29 Apr 23 09:02
You're looking at it from the wrong angle, dusty. The people behind this don't think you should be gambling (aside from a tenner on the grand national/ lottery). They don't care if people who can afford to lose are restricted. They definitely don't care for anyone who is betting full time, they'd rather you didn't (or weren't able). The concept of winning full time, long term is an anathema.
Yes, it's impossible to get away from the politics. Not party politics, but ideology. This project is just a part of the move to try and sanitise general life.
There are very few people in politics who fight for genuine freedom for individuals now. Okay, the few that do exist in the Tory party, but they are being marginalised and othered as kooky dinosaurs.
You just have to look at the utter spineless collapse of the political class over the lockdown disaster. I don't tend to be defeatist, but there is little hope, we are inexorably headed to CCP style control of the minutiae of our daily lives.
Sir Epicure Mammon 29 Apr 23 09:07
Cider, you have hit the nail squarely on the head there !
I second the nail being hit squarely on the head, you can look at this whole business the same as the current situation involving the whip and animal welfare, we're are getting chipped away at bit by bit with different factions coming at us from different angles forming a pincer movement and eventually there will be nothing left.
You're looking at it from the wrong angle, dusty. The people behind this don't think you should be gambling (aside from a tenner on the grand national/ lottery). They don't care if people who can afford to lose are restricted. They definitely don't care for anyone who is betting full time, they'd rather you didn't (or weren't able). The concept of winning full time, long term is an anathema.
Yes, it's impossible to get away from the politics. Not party politics, but ideology. This project is just a part of the move to try and sanitise general life.
There are very few people in politics who fight for genuine freedom for individuals now. Okay, the few that do exist in the Tory party, but they are being marginalised and othered as kooky dinosaurs.
You just have to look at the utter spineless collapse of the political class over the lockdown disaster. I don't tend to be defeatist, but there is little hope, we are inexorably headed to CCP style control of the minutiae of our daily lives.
Sir Epicure Mammon 29 Apr 23 09:07
Cider, you have hit the nail squarely on the head there !
I second the nail being hit squarely on the head, you can look at this whole business the same as the current situation involving the whip and animal welfare, we're are getting chipped away at bit by bit with different factions coming at us from different angles forming a pincer movement and eventually there will be nothing left.
now wheres that switch!!! • April 29, 2023 1:29 PM BST
Disagree HonkyJoe.. anyone who can evidence that punting is their sole income will be able to carry on as before. I can see that they will go down taxing these professionals accordingly though
This has been discussed on numerous occasions, gambling profits are not taxable by virtue of winning over an extended period, although it would be important to emphasise that the transaction is with betfair and not the person taking your bet. ie if laying you are not transacting with the public.
Disagree HonkyJoe.. anyone who can evidence that punting is their sole income will be able to carry on as before. I can see that they will go down taxing these professionals accordingly though
This has been discussed on numerous occasions, gambling profits are not taxable by virtue of winning over an extended period, although it would be important to emphasise that the transaction is with betfair and not the person taking your bet. ie if laying you are not transacting with the public.
The optimists are missing that when this came up a couple of years ago, the langauge used was deposits not losses. This change is clearly deliberate.
Denise Coates has made $9,000,000 from with respect, degenerate addicts...anyone with an ounce of nous has their acc closed or restricted. Why hasnt this ever been addressed?
fck rancid the whole industry.
fck rancid the whole industry.
cos she makes loads from johhny forriner and pays her taxes (so anyone doing eg a bit of bonus abuse gets a police taskforce on their case)
Denise Coates has made $9,000,000 from with respect, degenerate addicts...anyone with an ounce of nous has their acc closed or restricted. Why hasnt this ever been addressed?
Because she's a woman: Woke media and parliament turn a blind eye.
Because she's a woman: Woke media and parliament turn a blind eye.
This has been discussed on numerous occasions, gambling profits are not taxable by virtue of winning over an extended period
I know that that's the famous judgement from many decades ago: that a gambler is not acting according to the usual definition of a business, i.e., organizing things with the assumption of generating a profit. But we have common law in this country: if circumstances change, so does the courts' interpretation of the law.
Things are different now, particularly with the rise of this place. If I were to start arguing that I do indeed have thirty-two years of reliable, long-term income, which happens to have been through gambling alone, it feels as though I'd be sticking my head into a dark doorway marked TRAP.
It just wouldn't be worth the risk. If I ever do fall victim to an affordability check, I've decided that the only option is to ignore it and walk away.
I know that that's the famous judgement from many decades ago: that a gambler is not acting according to the usual definition of a business, i.e., organizing things with the assumption of generating a profit. But we have common law in this country: if circumstances change, so does the courts' interpretation of the law.
Things are different now, particularly with the rise of this place. If I were to start arguing that I do indeed have thirty-two years of reliable, long-term income, which happens to have been through gambling alone, it feels as though I'd be sticking my head into a dark doorway marked TRAP.
It just wouldn't be worth the risk. If I ever do fall victim to an affordability check, I've decided that the only option is to ignore it and walk away.
Yes that is an issue i.e. HMRC could decide that *you* are carrying on a business for some reason, but that wouldn't be a matter of judges changing their interpretation. In any case saying "this is my living, mate" is never going to be a solution when confronted with an affordability check as they have been presented. That is only going to be that you can demonstrate that you have a bankroll set aside for gambling and don't exhibit problem gambling behaviour.
Thanks, dave. Yes, you're right in that you wouldn't actually need a judge to change the courts' interpretation of the law for the Revenue to have a go at a punter. But if the punter were to fight the Revenue over the matter, then presumably a judge would have to make a judgement at some point.
The big problem is that when, over the years, there has been the occasional challenge to the original judgement, it's always been a case that the winning punter has been arguing that those profits really are not an income. But in the current circumstances a punter would be arguing that his profits in fact are an income. It would be hard to see a punter winning a case against the Revenue with that line of argument!
But as you say, it's all moot, because you'd never get your account unrestricted with this line of argument anyway. So, it's a case of ignoring any request for documents, and walking away.
By the way, I don't think that your argument that a punter should be allowed a to set aside a tank for gambling is ever going to fly: basically it's just a demand to be allowed to gamble your savings, which is the very thing the Duncan Smiths and the purple-haired loons are seeking to prohibit.
The big problem is that when, over the years, there has been the occasional challenge to the original judgement, it's always been a case that the winning punter has been arguing that those profits really are not an income. But in the current circumstances a punter would be arguing that his profits in fact are an income. It would be hard to see a punter winning a case against the Revenue with that line of argument!
But as you say, it's all moot, because you'd never get your account unrestricted with this line of argument anyway. So, it's a case of ignoring any request for documents, and walking away.
By the way, I don't think that your argument that a punter should be allowed a to set aside a tank for gambling is ever going to fly: basically it's just a demand to be allowed to gamble your savings, which is the very thing the Duncan Smiths and the purple-haired loons are seeking to prohibit.
Its not income as you arnt offing a good nor a service.
Its capital always was, always will be
Its capital always was, always will be
Being pedantic, it's not really "income" that is the issue with tax, it is that gambling isn't a trade, profession or vocation, so there isn't a basis for it to be subject to income tax. And someone looking for betting opportunities and taking them is never going to be taxed unless the govt creates a new tax schedule. There are def some exchange activities that come close to doing what a bookmaker does, particularly bots and if that was what you were doing it might be better to keep a low profile.
Re savings before the issue became "official" I got the GC to grudgingly to say:
I can confirm that there is no rule under which a licence is held with us that categorically states savings cannot be gambled.
So I've taken it up wuth them again and will try to persaude them to include it in the consultation.
Re savings before the issue became "official" I got the GC to grudgingly to say:
I can confirm that there is no rule under which a licence is held with us that categorically states savings cannot be gambled.
So I've taken it up wuth them again and will try to persaude them to include it in the consultation.
Oh, well done, dave. That line from the GC is a bit of a smoking gun.
Does the Horserace Bettors Forum know about this? I only mention them because I can't think of any other organization which might be minded to pursue our case.
Does the Horserace Bettors Forum know about this? I only mention them because I can't think of any other organization which might be minded to pursue our case.
I thought (though I have no way to confirm or support this) that the reason that HMRC have never tried to make gambling winnings liable to income tax is that doing so would make gambling losses offsettable against income for tax purposes, and since most punters lose (and bookie profits are already taxed and levied) that would be a net loser for them?
That's probably the reason they haven't introduced a new schedule that covers it, but the reason it isn't subject to income tax is as I outlined above.
Yes, longbridge, that is the practical reason why there's no over-arching taxation of income from gambling. If there were, it would actually be a net loser for the Revenue, as gambling losses are obviously higher than winnings, owing to Betfair's nice little earner of 2% commission in every transaction.
But the original judgement from 98 years ago, was more philosophical: in the case of Graham v Green (1925) 9 TC 309, the judge opined:
“A bet is merely an irrational agreement that one person should pay another person on the happening of an event.”
So there you are. That's us told.
But the original judgement from 98 years ago, was more philosophical: in the case of Graham v Green (1925) 9 TC 309, the judge opined:
“A bet is merely an irrational agreement that one person should pay another person on the happening of an event.”
So there you are. That's us told.
more than that, the judge said of a "pro" gambler:
I think all you can say of that man … is that he is addicted to betting. It is extremely difficult to express, but it seems to me that people would say he is addicted to betting, and could not say that his vocation is betting
Which probably isn't a good argument against responsible gambling checks.
I think all you can say of that man … is that he is addicted to betting. It is extremely difficult to express, but it seems to me that people would say he is addicted to betting, and could not say that his vocation is betting
Which probably isn't a good argument against responsible gambling checks.
Here is something good
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.
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.
I read that...but does that mean deposit limits rather than loss limits?
all their "checks" are based on "net loss" as defined. If you are a winner, you can at least put forward the argument that the money in your account is not from deposited money. And if you practice decent risk management, you will be able to operate.
Once again getting the GC to write in their guidance that net winners who have savings resulting from those winnings shouldn't be restricted is obv needed. As this obviously forces people to hold large balances in gambling sites, the majority of which don't protect those funds.
Once again getting the GC to write in their guidance that net winners who have savings resulting from those winnings shouldn't be restricted is obv needed. As this obviously forces people to hold large balances in gambling sites, the majority of which don't protect those funds.
Hold on
So you deposit 1k
Make it into 5k
Lost 2k in a day, and nothing?
It comes down to you having to lose the whole 5K before checks?
So you deposit 1k
Make it into 5k
Lost 2k in a day, and nothing?
It comes down to you having to lose the whole 5K before checks?
Seems a very convoluted way of making 'net' turn loss into deposit. What would the gain be for not just making it a deposit issue rather than a loss?
well it is lost deposits rather than deposits. btw it isn't ideal to be forced to keep a lot of money on a site, so it should aggregate deposits and negative deposits (withdrawals).
In theory if it was set up as only lost deposits triggering, someone who was a winner and had withdrawn all deposits would never get a check triggered.
If a betting shop loses £1,000, 2 days running, will they have to close until they get the auditors in to prove they are still solvent?
fobts are never going to lose two days running and they don't take any bets that would lose them £1k
Net loss means the loss of deposited money with a particular operator, and does not include the loss of restaked winnings from that operator.
I read that as well on Thursday, and made a printout of it to try and decipher what it really meant. My conclusion was that the person writing it wanted to make it clear that, if you were already up £150 for the month, you would have to lose all of that £150 and then a further £125 on the month before the £125 vulnerability check, for instance, was performed.
I will be surprised if BF use a 'net loss' figure that's different from the one they already record on their site - and that one simply measures whether you've made a profit or loss on your bets over the specified period.
On the other hand, those people on the forums who have been subjected to affordability checks often seem to have made some big deposits recently, so it's possible there's an out here.
I read that as well on Thursday, and made a printout of it to try and decipher what it really meant. My conclusion was that the person writing it wanted to make it clear that, if you were already up £150 for the month, you would have to lose all of that £150 and then a further £125 on the month before the £125 vulnerability check, for instance, was performed.
I will be surprised if BF use a 'net loss' figure that's different from the one they already record on their site - and that one simply measures whether you've made a profit or loss on your bets over the specified period.
On the other hand, those people on the forums who have been subjected to affordability checks often seem to have made some big deposits recently, so it's possible there's an out here.
If they were just to use the site figure, they would def be triggering checks unnecessarily eg deposit 1k. day one win 1k, day two lose 1k - check triggered on the 1k daily loss, but nothing of the deposit has been lost.
The problem that we have though is that in order to cater for people with past losses, they might zero everyone at some point and count all losses as if they were from deposits although in some cases those deposits haven't been made. Because that way is much more simple for them. Which might have been what you meant?
Well I thinking that the person writing it was assuming that bettors deposited most months, and that the only reason most of us had money in our accounts in the first place was because we had recently deposited that money in there... The paper does refer to 'rolling' periods, which does seem to imply that they're constantly zeroing the accounts for loss purposes. Otherwise, how could there possibly be a 'loss of deposited money' in a particular rolling period if no deposits had been made inside that period? That would imply that as long as you didn't make a check-worthy loss in the rolling periods that do include deposits, you could otherwise lose as much money as you wished in the rolling periods that didn't include deposits. Which obviously wouldn't be what they meant!!
Now, it could be that your lifetime balance must be negative before a £125 loss or whatever can spark the relevant check. But in that case, that really should be made clear.
Now, it could be that your lifetime balance must be negative before a £125 loss or whatever can spark the relevant check. But in that case, that really should be made clear.
Past winnings won't come into it IMO, past profit doesn't prove your current status is liquid, it also doesn't suggest that all that profit is sat in a box with the words" betting money only" written on it. For all any operator knows, you've been living hand to mouth and although you have shown an ability to win, that money is spent as quickly as it comes in and you couldn't afford a loss of any length.
So if I’m reading this correctly…..
They want to dissuade ppl from depositing on a whim and instantly losing it on a shot to nowt.
If it ‘resets’ on each deposit….
Nobody, irrespective of past results can end up -2k within 3months of the deposit without it triggering an assessment?
Doubt there’s a single person on here who at some point would fall into that category.
They want to dissuade ppl from depositing on a whim and instantly losing it on a shot to nowt.
If it ‘resets’ on each deposit….
Nobody, irrespective of past results can end up -2k within 3months of the deposit without it triggering an assessment?
Doubt there’s a single person on here who at some point would fall into that category.
It seems to me that everyone who gambles won’t be able to avoid having to be assessed at some point, it’s futile attempting to fight this on this front.
The only way is to have sufficient leniency as regards the criteria that deems a person solvent enough.
The only way is to have sufficient leniency as regards the criteria that deems a person solvent enough.
dusty - one of my main points, I've posted about on other thread, is how they check affordability, rather than just whether to allow it.
I think that should be a central focus in clarifying - for example giving a pay slip (if one has one) should be default rather than an open bank statement of all spending and income - which is ridiculously intrusive of privacy.
I hope that issue of 'method' will be clarified as this is ratified.
I think that should be a central focus in clarifying - for example giving a pay slip (if one has one) should be default rather than an open bank statement of all spending and income - which is ridiculously intrusive of privacy.
I hope that issue of 'method' will be clarified as this is ratified.
Or similarly, a soft credit check should be an alternative - if someone has huge debts showing then maybe it's right to assume a problem, but if not then...carry on!
It's just bonkers stu. These people have no concept of finance in the real world. There will be people who earn £25K and never get into financial difficulties. Other people on a £million + go bankrupt. Income does not determine or define affordability. In fact it's impossible to define. Thousands of properties are repossessed every year, after extremely rigorous mortgage affordability checks. Someone could pass an 'affordability' check based on income today, and quit their job tomorrow.
Anyone familiar with the mse forum can see endless stories of middle class people with middle class incomes and lifestyles, in thousands of pounds of unsecured debt and still have (as they see it) 5 pets, gym membership, iphone subs and grocery bills of £500 shopping in Waitrose.
I've also asked on here what is a problem gambler, nobody yet has put forward their definition.
Anyone familiar with the mse forum can see endless stories of middle class people with middle class incomes and lifestyles, in thousands of pounds of unsecured debt and still have (as they see it) 5 pets, gym membership, iphone subs and grocery bills of £500 shopping in Waitrose.
I've also asked on here what is a problem gambler, nobody yet has put forward their definition.
I'm assuming the bookies' idea of 'problem gambler' is somebody who's consistently losing more than they can afford to bet, Cider. If you have £500 to spend after you've paid off your mortgage, bills, food etc. for the month, but you're regularly sticking a thousand pounds into your betting account and then losing it again, you're probably a 'problem gambler'.
The GC defines it as 'gambling to a degree that compromises, disrupts, or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits'. A bit vague that one. And what if you define gambling as your recreational pursuit!??
Well obv if you do your dough, your recreational pursuit of gambling is disrupted!
I'd love to know how someone puts £1K into a betting account if they only have £500!
But I don't buy that as a definition. What is someone who in that position spends £1K on a holiday? A problem tourist?
In all walks of life there are people who spend more than their disposable income on things. As I mentioned upthread, like Waitrose shopping. Are they problem grocery shoppers? How about people who are on benefits and have iPhone subscriptions? Do people blame Vodafone for selling for selling them mobiles that they can't 'afford'.
How about people who have babies that can't even afford to feed themselves with their own money. Problem parents?
But I don't buy that as a definition. What is someone who in that position spends £1K on a holiday? A problem tourist?
In all walks of life there are people who spend more than their disposable income on things. As I mentioned upthread, like Waitrose shopping. Are they problem grocery shoppers? How about people who are on benefits and have iPhone subscriptions? Do people blame Vodafone for selling for selling them mobiles that they can't 'afford'.
How about people who have babies that can't even afford to feed themselves with their own money. Problem parents?
You could call it an individual who gambles and is unable to take responsibility for their own decisions. However, as I allude to there are hundred+ different life choices that you could equally apply that to.
Totally agree cider, that problem 'spending' can clearly occur in so many different ways aside from gambling.
Addiction research actually has some categories officially such as 'problem shopping/spending' behaviour - yet I'm pretty sure the government won't be doing a single thing to curb that, in any way, for anyone.
Addiction research actually has some categories officially such as 'problem shopping/spending' behaviour - yet I'm pretty sure the government won't be doing a single thing to curb that, in any way, for anyone.
Let's also add a credit part into this question - you can use a credit card for many different things in wider spending.
But for gambling credit cards are no longer permitted directly at least.
So you can spend money you don't have on a vast range of things, but not for gambling!
But for gambling credit cards are no longer permitted directly at least.
So you can spend money you don't have on a vast range of things, but not for gambling!
Yes and that's before you go into any correlation with gambling on day trading, options, derivatives, currency et al. AJ Bell or Trading 121 are not responsible for allowing me to invest capital in the stock market, even if it makes me potless.
You asked what we thought the gambling industry meant by 'problem gambler', and I gave you a definition. I don't go along with it 100% myself, and I think there's a lot of missing info in the various definitions. I would suggest that somebody who consistently spends more than they have coming in (whether through loans, overdrafts, or finding a way of circumventing the credit card rules) does have a bit of a problem. However, I totally agree that lots of people spend more than they have - I don't see why it's 'better' that somebody spends too much on clothes, or drink, or restaurants.. For some reason, though, society seems to have settled on gambling as the biggest stain on modern life.
Yes that's a fair retort. My replies were aimed in general at the people on the opposite side of this, not you personally. But 'our' side is playing the wrong ball, as I keep alluding to. Horse racing has no financial responsibility for the people who bet on it, who can't control their own finances. The nirvana of people only spending their money wisely (on whatever) is demonstrably unachievable. So why give credibility to the theory that it is possible in gambling.
Bookies have a responsibility for still tapping up people who have told them that they no longer want their business. And if do they, should face commensurate consequences.
Bookies have a responsibility for still tapping up people who have told them that they no longer want their business. And if do they, should face commensurate consequences.
Cider 30 Apr 23 15:34
I'd love to know how someone puts £1K into a betting account if they only have £500!
But I don't buy that as a definition. What is someone who in that position spends £1K on a holiday? A problem tourist?
In all walks of life there are people who spend more than their disposable income on things. As I mentioned upthread, like Waitrose shopping. Are they problem grocery shoppers? How about people who are on benefits and have iPhone subscriptions? Do people blame Vodafone for selling for selling them mobiles that they can't 'afford'.
How about people who have babies that can't even afford to feed themselves with their own money. Problem parents?
All of the above is true but the situation between all those examples and gambling is that gambling is the subject that has become the new thing to marginalize, society has turned on it in a similar way that smokers became pariahs a few years back and society is out to get us and Govt, rather than hold fast , will simply go with the flow, it's a similar situation with the chipping away with the animal rights and the whip issue, eventually there will be nothing left.
I'd love to know how someone puts £1K into a betting account if they only have £500!
But I don't buy that as a definition. What is someone who in that position spends £1K on a holiday? A problem tourist?
In all walks of life there are people who spend more than their disposable income on things. As I mentioned upthread, like Waitrose shopping. Are they problem grocery shoppers? How about people who are on benefits and have iPhone subscriptions? Do people blame Vodafone for selling for selling them mobiles that they can't 'afford'.
How about people who have babies that can't even afford to feed themselves with their own money. Problem parents?
All of the above is true but the situation between all those examples and gambling is that gambling is the subject that has become the new thing to marginalize, society has turned on it in a similar way that smokers became pariahs a few years back and society is out to get us and Govt, rather than hold fast , will simply go with the flow, it's a similar situation with the chipping away with the animal rights and the whip issue, eventually there will be nothing left.
When I was a lot younger, and stupider (sic), my biggest problem with gambling all came through credit - because I had some earnings credit cards were getting flung at me like sweeties. It caused me several years of very difficult times and recovery financially that I can just about enjoy nowadays.
Yet, that problem still persists for those who spend outside of gambling, even in this age of the 'cost of living crisis' - there are loan companies and credit card companies spreading their disease everywhere! - yet apparently it is the responsible guy having a 50 quid bet that is the problem to tackle!
Yet, that problem still persists for those who spend outside of gambling, even in this age of the 'cost of living crisis' - there are loan companies and credit card companies spreading their disease everywhere! - yet apparently it is the responsible guy having a 50 quid bet that is the problem to tackle!
what will all the problem gamblers do with their spare money now? serious question.
I agree duffy, I don't foresee the prospects of the direction of travel changing, whatever happens. However, language is very important. It really irritates me when the liberalists come up with a term and it enters the general discourse as if everyone accepts it as being a thing. There is no such thing as a problem gambler in my view.
Humans are messy. We always have been, and we always will be. Hopefully, as we grow older, we get wiser and more patient and more disciplined, but I think that many of us need to go through those mistakes in order to get there. I don't understand this modern attitude, where we're all either victims or vampires, and there's nothing inbetween. Most of us are just trying to get ourselves from cradle to grave while taking in a few of the more interesting sights along the way. That's never going to be without risks, and I don't actually think many of us would want it to be.
There is no such thing as a problem gambler in my view.
Not sure I'd actually agree with that. There are clearly people who get completely addicted to betting, and will keep pumping in any money they have on ill-thought bet after ill-thought bet. Plenty of us go through that to a greater or (mostly) lesser extent, and most of us find ways of controlling our urges. But there are a few who, no matter whatever they do, will never be able to clear the red mist when they lose a bet. And those people really should stay away from gambling.
Whether the rest of us should be forced to shelve our hobby in order to help those few is another question, though. (Once you go down that route, you're effectively saying that nobody should be allowed to drive cars or drink or go out in public.)
Not sure I'd actually agree with that. There are clearly people who get completely addicted to betting, and will keep pumping in any money they have on ill-thought bet after ill-thought bet. Plenty of us go through that to a greater or (mostly) lesser extent, and most of us find ways of controlling our urges. But there are a few who, no matter whatever they do, will never be able to clear the red mist when they lose a bet. And those people really should stay away from gambling.
Whether the rest of us should be forced to shelve our hobby in order to help those few is another question, though. (Once you go down that route, you're effectively saying that nobody should be allowed to drive cars or drink or go out in public.)
There are people who literally get addicted to anything. Fast fashion, plastic surgery, gaming, you name it. As a special category of its own, no. I can't have it. People have only placed it in a special category as they have a moral objection to the underlying activity, imo. A vice. An unacceptable activity. So essentially accepting the term concedes that gambling is a vice, imv. Intentionally, or not. Even though there will be thousands of pet owners who can't afford them, nobody would categorise them as problem pet owners. As it's viewed as an acceptable thing to do within the dinner party set.
what will all the problem gamblers do with their spare money now? serious question.
TBH, the most likely answer is pay off whatever combined debts or bills they haven't paid. If someone is a real problem gambler they will have built up a backlog of non-paid bills.
But, as cider and others point out, that problem is far from limited to gambling debts. It will still be a problem for many people, that they have landed in great mountains of debt and non-paid bills across society. I agree with cider, this is a moral campaign against gambling in particular, based on non-founded ethical principles and dislike for gambling.
TBH, the most likely answer is pay off whatever combined debts or bills they haven't paid. If someone is a real problem gambler they will have built up a backlog of non-paid bills.
But, as cider and others point out, that problem is far from limited to gambling debts. It will still be a problem for many people, that they have landed in great mountains of debt and non-paid bills across society. I agree with cider, this is a moral campaign against gambling in particular, based on non-founded ethical principles and dislike for gambling.
That's an easy one. As Dustybin says, they'll either go to unregulated foreign bookies or else they'll just amble along to the casinos/slot shops that are about to proliferate on the high street. Addicts looking for a fix will always find ways of getting themselves into trouble, and this white paper will conjure up lots of possibilities for them.
You asked what we thought the gambling industry meant by 'problem gambler', and I gave you a definition. I don't go along with it 100% myself, and I think there's a lot of missing info in the various definitions. I would suggest that somebody who consistently spends more than they have coming in (whether through loans, overdrafts, or finding a way of circumventing the credit card rules) does have a bit of a problem. However, I totally agree that lots of people spend more than they have - I don't see why it's 'better' that somebody spends too much on clothes, or drink, or restaurants.. For some reason, though, society seems to have settled on gambling as the biggest stain on modern life.
X2
X2
The £2k over three months anyone spoke to Betfair about this . Will it be deposit driven or from the three month rolling p/l. Any thoughts ?
I havnt heard anything yet.
But it would be a mightily high bar that is utterly unsustainable beyond having ultra efficient pros and the very affluent gambling as a form of status.
Imagine everyone having to make a profit from their deposits and if you happen to lose a deposited total amount of 2k over 3 months you face the inquisition.
The most present question I’d like answering is regarding the 1k over 24 hours.
If you happen to have turned a deposit into a profit does that mean you can lose 1k in 24 hours without getting molested by the pressure from the weeping minority?
It’s a very important piece of information, not knowing is as bad as the answer being ‘no’.
But it would be a mightily high bar that is utterly unsustainable beyond having ultra efficient pros and the very affluent gambling as a form of status.
Imagine everyone having to make a profit from their deposits and if you happen to lose a deposited total amount of 2k over 3 months you face the inquisition.
The most present question I’d like answering is regarding the 1k over 24 hours.
If you happen to have turned a deposit into a profit does that mean you can lose 1k in 24 hours without getting molested by the pressure from the weeping minority?
It’s a very important piece of information, not knowing is as bad as the answer being ‘no’.
I would guess that if there is a definition of problem gambling, it is going to revolve around people who get into financial problems, from gambling or otherwise, and view gambling as a way of resolving those problems. Furthermore, I would be surprised if many people with a reasonable level of accessible cash reserves were problem gamblers under any definition.
They could well be living a kind of lifestyle that they can't afford, and try to gamble their way out of trouble. Again, they aren't a problem gambler. It is true, that they might be turning to gambling out of desperation. However, there's no way proof of income is going to flush out such an individual.
I'm sure people try the same with lottery tickets, scratch cards, bingo halls, casino, btc, get rich quick schemes, whatever. Gambling is a symptom for those people, not the cause.
That isn't my point. This is my point:
I would be surprised if many people with a reasonable level of accessible cash reserves were problem gamblers under any definition.
I would be surprised if many people with a reasonable level of accessible cash reserves were problem gamblers under any definition.
Think you hit it cider. It's an ego thing with many of them. They think they are so special that they should be on what top earners are making. " I'm as good or better than anyone " so should be on good money.
Its a " Framework " nothing in black and white for ages yet, plenty of water to go under the bridge including a change of Government, keep calm and carry on.
Not true sadly, Glasgow. Many of the betting firms will be bringing their policies into line with these requirements with almost immediate effect. (Affordability checks were brought in by some of the firms from the moment they were first talked about.) And even where they don't implement them, we're unlikely to be told this officially. So we'll have to proceed as though they have been implemented, unless we want to be suddenly hit by a demand for bank statements etc.
The consultation for affordablity is in the next three or four months, so will be implemented within a year.
It's all such overkill. If they simply insisted that no deposits could be made if your 30-day or 7-day profit/loss figure was negative, and that if you were showing a minus figure for the day, you wouldn't be allowed to deposit for a week (or even two), that would solve many of the more serious problems with sports betting. As I've said before, the gamblers who get themselves into serious problems are the ones who get the red mist, place lots of bets until their account balance has gone, and then simply redeposit again and again over a multi-day spree. Those are the people you really need to save from themselves, and a temporary deposit freeze mechanism would, at the very least, give them a time-out that would allow them to clear their heads.
The biggest flaw there would be that they can simply go to another betting site and deposit there instead, but it does seem as though we're moving towards a system where the different firms share a certain amount of data on their customers, so that will be harder to get around in the future.
The biggest flaw there would be that they can simply go to another betting site and deposit there instead, but it does seem as though we're moving towards a system where the different firms share a certain amount of data on their customers, so that will be harder to get around in the future.
I would be surprised if many people with a reasonable level of accessible cash reserves were problem gamblers under any definition.
Well actually, no. You're a finance person iirc, so you should know. I'm sure this Dance character had plenty of cash reserves. It doesn't prove anything. The underlying concept that a person's financial tolerance for gambling can be remotely predicted/automated is for the birds. Whatever they do won't work, the end game is to stop gambling in any meaningful amounts.
They could easily predict 'addictive' activity with existing machine learning tech etc, nobody that counts is interested in pursuing that. And as I've covered up thread, anyone in receipt of taxpayer handouts could be banned from gambling online. The chances of that happening are between sweet fa and zero.
Well actually, no. You're a finance person iirc, so you should know. I'm sure this Dance character had plenty of cash reserves. It doesn't prove anything. The underlying concept that a person's financial tolerance for gambling can be remotely predicted/automated is for the birds. Whatever they do won't work, the end game is to stop gambling in any meaningful amounts.
They could easily predict 'addictive' activity with existing machine learning tech etc, nobody that counts is interested in pursuing that. And as I've covered up thread, anyone in receipt of taxpayer handouts could be banned from gambling online. The chances of that happening are between sweet fa and zero.
We can be pretty sure the betting sites already know who the addicts are, just as they also have a good idea who the 'shrewdies' are.
'define a problem gambler'
For the people pushing this legislation the default will be that any gambler is a problem, until they have proven otherwise by granting access to their bank statements to whoever they try to bet with.
For the people pushing this legislation the default will be that any gambler is a problem, until they have proven otherwise by granting access to their bank statements to whoever they try to bet with.
'define a problem gambler'
A person whose life has been ruined by gambling and we all know many. My own father was a prime example.
A person whose life has been ruined by gambling and we all know many. My own father was a prime example.
The term "problem gambler" doesn't just mean financial based though, what about if you can afford to gamble on a financial based footing but spend all your time doing so, neglecting family life and all else in the process, how is that "problem gambler" going to be dealt with?
The same way the "problem worker" who spends all his time doing so, is dealt with. Oh wait.
No need to complicate the issue with "how do we deal with it" etc" The question was define a problem gambler.
everyone will have the 'silent' assessment of the CCJ search...infact I bet they do on opening new accounts
A person whose life has been ruined by gambling and we all know many.
Extremely nebulous, but let's roll with it. In that case, the only way to prevent someone from ruining their own lives because they can't control their betting is to have no betting (for material amounts). But then they could still go down the scratch card route, for example. Assuming gambling could be eliminated from society, which it can't be.
fwiw, this is a post on the front page of the mse forum. I just looked now, these situations are commonplace and those who make them public on mse will be the tip of the iceberg.
Back in debt and on DMP after battling addiction.
Here I am again... in a position I vowed never too be in again after climbing out of debt a number of years ago....
Over the past 6 months or so I have been battling addiction with drugs. I have put myself in so much financial trouble that I have spent all my savings and any money I've had feeding my terrible addiction.
I have no money too pay my rent coming up towards the end of the week or a few other upcoming bills either... I'm in such a bad way... just don't know what too do! I've tried to get a loan too cover me for this month until I next get paid (which I shouldn't do being on DMP either!), I'm getting rejected everywhere though. I have no other friends and family too turn too now... because I owe most of them money too.
The only positive I have is that I have managed too be clean of drugs for the past 3 days and start reattending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in an attempt too stay clear and clean of the substances that I have so selfishly and stupidly allowed too take a hold of me and pretty much ruin my life in the short term at least...
If you thought that taking drugs was banned and illegal, you would be spot on. Unfortunately, there still appears to be problem dug takers.
The liberalist dream of preventing people from making extremely poor life choices, 'tis but a dream.
Extremely nebulous, but let's roll with it. In that case, the only way to prevent someone from ruining their own lives because they can't control their betting is to have no betting (for material amounts). But then they could still go down the scratch card route, for example. Assuming gambling could be eliminated from society, which it can't be.
fwiw, this is a post on the front page of the mse forum. I just looked now, these situations are commonplace and those who make them public on mse will be the tip of the iceberg.
Back in debt and on DMP after battling addiction.
Here I am again... in a position I vowed never too be in again after climbing out of debt a number of years ago....
Over the past 6 months or so I have been battling addiction with drugs. I have put myself in so much financial trouble that I have spent all my savings and any money I've had feeding my terrible addiction.
I have no money too pay my rent coming up towards the end of the week or a few other upcoming bills either... I'm in such a bad way... just don't know what too do! I've tried to get a loan too cover me for this month until I next get paid (which I shouldn't do being on DMP either!), I'm getting rejected everywhere though. I have no other friends and family too turn too now... because I owe most of them money too.
The only positive I have is that I have managed too be clean of drugs for the past 3 days and start reattending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in an attempt too stay clear and clean of the substances that I have so selfishly and stupidly allowed too take a hold of me and pretty much ruin my life in the short term at least...
If you thought that taking drugs was banned and illegal, you would be spot on. Unfortunately, there still appears to be problem dug takers.
The liberalist dream of preventing people from making extremely poor life choices, 'tis but a dream.
The liberalist dream of preventing people from making extremely poor life choices, 'tis but a dream.
It is nothing to do with liberals - on any meaning of the word.
It is nothing to do with liberals - on any meaning of the word.
I've not seen all the discourse over this topic, but I have seen a lot of it. Most people discussing in public appear to feel that eliminating 'problem gamblers' is achievable, but disagree on the level of intervention, or tactics needed to do it. The bleeding obvious is that it's based on a ridiculous starting hypothesis, the idea that these are outcomes that can be eliminated.
The liberalist ideology in my view is that for anything that happens to people in society that is negative, there is an intervention by the state that can fix it. And that the state has limited resources in trying to achieve it. It's not party politics per se, the current Tory party is stuffed with liberalists.
Its left of centre ideology.(The opposite of laissez-faire)
As Ive said numerous times on here, any party can propose any ideological bill.
The Tories have implemented numerous left wing policies over the last number of years.
As Ive said numerous times on here, any party can propose any ideological bill.
The Tories have implemented numerous left wing policies over the last number of years.
I don't know dave, but there are probably conflicting ideologies there. I'm not sure western liberalists will feel that measures of societal control like the threat of throwing gay people off the top of high rise buildings is the shade of nirvana they are seeking.
This whole issue came about due to a very odd mixture of emotion, truth and distortions of truth.
It is true that many people (mostly men) over the years have been destroyed, sometimes very literally, by gambling. And they sometimes tell very gut wrenching stories in print and in other media - I've read a few.
But though this is based in emotive truth, there is also a large layer of lies or truth distortion involved. The anti-gambling campaign spreads numerous half truths about what gambling actually is for many. As we know, it can be a perfectly fine activity to be involved in, even to a very serious level. But the lies are that it is all basically degenerate, will almost always put a person in great danger, has no skill involved etc etc etc.
To a casual or non-gambler, which is a massive majority - the latter story is 'true' and sadly there is little way to educate anyone about how this story is distorted. I am not even sure I could convince some of my own relatives about gambling, let alone a wider population.
It is true that many people (mostly men) over the years have been destroyed, sometimes very literally, by gambling. And they sometimes tell very gut wrenching stories in print and in other media - I've read a few.
But though this is based in emotive truth, there is also a large layer of lies or truth distortion involved. The anti-gambling campaign spreads numerous half truths about what gambling actually is for many. As we know, it can be a perfectly fine activity to be involved in, even to a very serious level. But the lies are that it is all basically degenerate, will almost always put a person in great danger, has no skill involved etc etc etc.
To a casual or non-gambler, which is a massive majority - the latter story is 'true' and sadly there is little way to educate anyone about how this story is distorted. I am not even sure I could convince some of my own relatives about gambling, let alone a wider population.
I'd suggest that the biggest "problem gamblers" are the firms and their software engineers who design addiction into their products.
Precious little attention to them....
Precious little attention to them....
Most of today's 'issues' can be traced back to state intervention. Intervening on aspects that they are actually clueless about, or have zero comprehension of the unintended consequences. Either that, or in the short term, they don't care.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539