Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
It seems that my finances need to be checked and unless I go along with this, my 'Budget Spend' (?) will be reduced. I've told the bloke on the chat thing to just close my account. So that's 22 years on here coming to an end. The Nanny State wins.
My thanks and best wishes to all those I've corresponded with on here over the years. I shall miss the betting and I'll miss the forum, but life goes on and some principles are more important than a betting account.
Good luck to those that remain, Alan
My thanks and best wishes to all those I've corresponded with on here over the years. I shall miss the betting and I'll miss the forum, but life goes on and some principles are more important than a betting account.
Good luck to those that remain, Alan
Show More
I'd a dispute with one regarding id verification after winning on a promotion; I asked it to refer to electoral register for id confirmation. The entity stated as it was based in Malta thus not governed by UK licence governance; I lost £10. I think it was RED a poker site which also offered horse betting.
impossible - I would be interested to know which site if you can remember exactly - offering gambling in the UK with a Malta licence and no UKGC licence breaks UK law as I understand it.
if it was pre 2014 they could operate using a non-uk license.
The Cows thing is something a think tank has come up with as a way of meeting emissions targets.
Not Government policy and not likely to happen given Irelands dependence on agriculture.
Not Government policy and not likely to happen given Irelands dependence on agriculture.
whatever - if ppl can't stay on the point and witter on about cows, covid and the great reset, they will be discounted as loons.
It was definitely RED, a predominantly poker site which was based in Malta (I remember this well). But, it seemed to have disappeared or swallowed up by another.
The only loons are those who still believe all of these attacks on our freedom from multiple directions are isolated occurrences, and done with best intent.
Later this month, thousands of ostensibly poor people will be taxed for driving their car past the M25 toward London.
Seven cops go into a private home to arrest a distressed 16 year old autistic child, she spends hours overnight in custody, but mobs of feral kids are free to shoplift at will.
A father is let off scot free after beating his child with an iron bar outside her school for wearing make up. After it was discovered she was only wearing the make to disguise the bruises from his previous beatings. You can guess the ideology there.
But, hey, it's all a conspiracy.
Later this month, thousands of ostensibly poor people will be taxed for driving their car past the M25 toward London.
Seven cops go into a private home to arrest a distressed 16 year old autistic child, she spends hours overnight in custody, but mobs of feral kids are free to shoplift at will.
A father is let off scot free after beating his child with an iron bar outside her school for wearing make up. After it was discovered she was only wearing the make to disguise the bruises from his previous beatings. You can guess the ideology there.
But, hey, it's all a conspiracy.
All this talk about establishing a site offering betting similar to 'sportsbook' this p o s cannot even deliver pictures from France. Bloody awful considering it's a "major" betting platform.
The reason why these other attacks are relevant is that people are trying to bring logic to this argument. It's as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
The people bringing in these stringent checks are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They also bring in woodchips from trees cut down in Canada, via huge diesel powered ships, burn it in England (Drax) and call it green energy. More logic.
The people bringing in these stringent checks are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They also bring in woodchips from trees cut down in Canada, via huge diesel powered ships, burn it in England (Drax) and call it green energy. More logic.
If the GC read this thread they will be convinced that their proposals are justified ,beggars belief some of the stuff on here, dave 1357spot on and succinct.
And you actually think you can convince them not to do it 
We are in nutter territory if you think strategists at the GC haven't already made their mind up.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the new order of things for the establishment is decide what they want to do, and try and find evidence to support what they want to do. And if there isn't any, make it up.
It is not, basing rational decisions on evidence. Alas.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the new order of things for the establishment is decide what they want to do, and try and find evidence to support what they want to do. And if there isn't any, make it up.
It is not, basing rational decisions on evidence. Alas.
There are dozens of examples of what I said. But I do not wish to completely derail Alan's thread. My general point is, if people really do care, and they absolutely should. It cannot be fought arguing about the minutiae of individual policy suggestions. It is completely missing the point of what is happening. The overarching fight is for the survival of traditional English/Western values. You know, the thing that hundreds of thousands of our betters have died fighting for in the past. I feel it's worth fighting for myself, we're not however putting our lives on the line. Yet.
Traditional English values ? Btw plenty of my colleagues were buried not knowing that was why they were serving, nice of you to clarify the public thinking.....not!!
One thing perplexes me, the winners figure on Betfair used to be 2% if I'm not mistaken ? Yet here we have all but everyone arguing for the right to continue losing on this site. That losing 98% have the easiest solution ever and that is to give up the game. If you can't manage that then you probably do need some protection. That won't be a popular view and I categorically state that I'd no more show BF my private parts than my bank balance. Never has there been a greater incentive to boycott the bookmakers who for many years have been treating punters like vermin. There is a great big world out there outside of gambling...sample it !
The Anorak has made the right call and others need to vote with their feet as well. As for the 2% who DO make it pay, well if this is your only income then you'll likely bite the bullet and show your balances...but for those in the 98%, well it's like turkeys voting for Christmas. If you continue with these restraints, you will likely lose even more because of the constant concern about showing you can fund your losses. Freedom of choice is something totally different from freedom to fill the pockets of the parasites who have exploited your gambling habit for countless decades.
The Anorak has made the right call and others need to vote with their feet as well. As for the 2% who DO make it pay, well if this is your only income then you'll likely bite the bullet and show your balances...but for those in the 98%, well it's like turkeys voting for Christmas. If you continue with these restraints, you will likely lose even more because of the constant concern about showing you can fund your losses. Freedom of choice is something totally different from freedom to fill the pockets of the parasites who have exploited your gambling habit for countless decades.
Do you advocate capitulation Duncan? If everyone did what Alan has done as a matter of principle then the GC have won before the race has been run, doing nothing is tantamount to giving in without a fight, even if the fight is one sided.
DD, you've missed the point completely. The winners CAN'T simply "show their balances" and continue betting. Bank balances are completely ignored for these affordability checks.
It's income from employment only. Not pensions, not income from investments, just income from employment. And you'd have to be in the top 10% of earners at least to be allowed to continue betting with the kind of losing runs which long-term winners inevitably suffer.
It's income from employment only. Not pensions, not income from investments, just income from employment. And you'd have to be in the top 10% of earners at least to be allowed to continue betting with the kind of losing runs which long-term winners inevitably suffer.
I'm fighting the bookies for a level playing field. I'm also fighting the bookies for a guaranteed payout if I win. I'm also fighting the bookies to exercise common sense and lesser aggression on AC.
I'm not fighting the Gambling Commission (GC); I understand AC is necessary to protect the problem gamblers and addicts. I understand the previous incumbent at GC was ineffective, and possibly in cahoot with bookies hence the present predicament. The bookies are only interested in fobt; horseracing and betting are merely side-shows.
I'm prepared to sit-it-out or use a grey website to continue betting until AC is acceptable or palatable to me. Horse betting is not a compulsory pastime for me.
I'm not fighting the Gambling Commission (GC); I understand AC is necessary to protect the problem gamblers and addicts. I understand the previous incumbent at GC was ineffective, and possibly in cahoot with bookies hence the present predicament. The bookies are only interested in fobt; horseracing and betting are merely side-shows.
I'm prepared to sit-it-out or use a grey website to continue betting until AC is acceptable or palatable to me. Horse betting is not a compulsory pastime for me.
No Cagliari, it's not capitulation. Capitulation is if you play the GC game and send BF your financial details. What's next ? A questionnaire asking how much your mortgaged house is worth ? A mass rejection of this shocking invasion of privacy and a boycott is the only action that would make both the GC and bookmakers take note.
dave1357 13 Aug 23 08:06
is it any wonder the ukgc/govt ignore us, with loons like GEORGE.B endlessly spouting on about Irish cows.
............................
you are citing invasion of privacy and human rights dave, but only on this issue it seems.
You didn't care about anyone else citing these things when they were forcing people to have injections or lose their job, and houses were being searched for illegal visitors a while back.
is it any wonder the ukgc/govt ignore us, with loons like GEORGE.B endlessly spouting on about Irish cows.
............................
you are citing invasion of privacy and human rights dave, but only on this issue it seems.
You didn't care about anyone else citing these things when they were forcing people to have injections or lose their job, and houses were being searched for illegal visitors a while back.
Screaming...I freely admit I didn't know that. So as a retiree you can no longer bet ? Well that is just incredible and actually endorses my view. I retired from the game 14 years ago and that is why I haven't studied the implications fully.
It makes giving the game up an absolute no brainer...especially for those in the 98%
It makes giving the game up an absolute no brainer...especially for those in the 98%
Well, a retiree can still bet, but only if he doesn't have a bad day and lose a grand. Or a perfectly normal three months and lose two grand.
@Duncan D
Why would you give up if you were a long-term loser? Some of us do this for fun. Since I found BF back in 2010 I pretty much break even (I haven't deposited or withdrawn for more than five years) but before that I used to lose about £50 a month betting on horses. I did it then, and I do it now, for the fun of it. It's a hobby, and a cheaper one than many.
Why would you give up if you were a long-term loser? Some of us do this for fun. Since I found BF back in 2010 I pretty much break even (I haven't deposited or withdrawn for more than five years) but before that I used to lose about £50 a month betting on horses. I did it then, and I do it now, for the fun of it. It's a hobby, and a cheaper one than many.
"Well, a retiree can still bet, but only if he doesn't have a bad day and lose a grand. Or a perfectly normal three months and lose two grand."
That rules out most serious gamblers SBW....I recall depositing six times that amount in one afternoon when every lay seemed to win. Ok that was exceptional but as I said earlier, having that 'limit' hanging over you would undoubtedly affect your mindset when gambling.
Longbridge, fair point and having not withdrawn or deposited for over 5 years I assume you will be unaffected ? I should think that recreational gamblers will be welcomed. Larger staking gamblers are the ones more affected.
That rules out most serious gamblers SBW....I recall depositing six times that amount in one afternoon when every lay seemed to win. Ok that was exceptional but as I said earlier, having that 'limit' hanging over you would undoubtedly affect your mindset when gambling.
Longbridge, fair point and having not withdrawn or deposited for over 5 years I assume you will be unaffected ? I should think that recreational gamblers will be welcomed. Larger staking gamblers are the ones more affected.
That's the actual point. Affordability in the real world has very little to do with staking, or income. If someone has a child, has to get the taxpayer to pay for them to eat, and loses £50 a week betting on the NL, I would call that unaffordable betting. The GC however thinks that's their version of preferred punting.
As I've alluded to, these are sinister intentions in my view, but these people appear to have no idea how the real world functions.
Cider not just on this topic it seems these people who are allowed to make decisions have no idea of the real world .
Imagine AC was implemented on those on welfare esp those unemployed and with many kids? What do you think may happen as a result? Riots, possibly anarchy, I'd think.
my main response re the intrusive checks:
The "light touch financial vulnerability check" will already have identified individuals in financial difficulty. There are also mandatory checks related to source of funds and financial crime that involve large volume gamblers. So you propose to demand that your licensees (who, as your enforcement records time and again show, are extremely dubious organisations) gather vast amounts of personal financial information on people who are not in financial difficulty and either are not betting enough to require source of funds checks or have proved that their betting funds are legitimate.
So this brings us to the Human Rights Act: "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions". You are a government body and in these proposals mandate your licensees to breach this right if someone quite reasonably refuses to give them detailed financial information for the purpose of an affordability assessment. Have you taken legal advice on this?
There is also the Data Protection Act. Quite clearly to insist that someone, with no evidence of financial difficulty and betting legitimate funds, provides the kind of information that would normally be requested when seeking significant credit from a financial institution, is excessive information gathering.
Its a bit of a pain, but everyone should have a go, at least just to make the main points. You can then leave a lot of it blank.
The "light touch financial vulnerability check" will already have identified individuals in financial difficulty. There are also mandatory checks related to source of funds and financial crime that involve large volume gamblers. So you propose to demand that your licensees (who, as your enforcement records time and again show, are extremely dubious organisations) gather vast amounts of personal financial information on people who are not in financial difficulty and either are not betting enough to require source of funds checks or have proved that their betting funds are legitimate.
So this brings us to the Human Rights Act: "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions". You are a government body and in these proposals mandate your licensees to breach this right if someone quite reasonably refuses to give them detailed financial information for the purpose of an affordability assessment. Have you taken legal advice on this?
There is also the Data Protection Act. Quite clearly to insist that someone, with no evidence of financial difficulty and betting legitimate funds, provides the kind of information that would normally be requested when seeking significant credit from a financial institution, is excessive information gathering.
Its a bit of a pain, but everyone should have a go, at least just to make the main points. You can then leave a lot of it blank.
Aanorak,why someone who joined Betfair in 2001 would enter the world of chat amazes me.
You’ve more chance of getting a Chinese or Indian takeaway delivered from chat than dealing with an issue.
I ve found that Betfair always seem to sort any problems out eventually,so just trust in them and accept there’ll be a reason behind the issue,I’m sure there’ll be a rule in their terms as to why anything has happened,so it’s like players moaning at the ref for a penalty,decision has been made,just play on.
As for retirees being reduced spend,unless finances looked at seems harsh,given the banks can advertise equity release loans for hundreds of thousands with no requirement to ask what you’re spending it on.
Bookies should register as banks ,then they can do as they please to get round affordability checks.
You’ve more chance of getting a Chinese or Indian takeaway delivered from chat than dealing with an issue.
I ve found that Betfair always seem to sort any problems out eventually,so just trust in them and accept there’ll be a reason behind the issue,I’m sure there’ll be a rule in their terms as to why anything has happened,so it’s like players moaning at the ref for a penalty,decision has been made,just play on.
As for retirees being reduced spend,unless finances looked at seems harsh,given the banks can advertise equity release loans for hundreds of thousands with no requirement to ask what you’re spending it on.
Bookies should register as banks ,then they can do as they please to get round affordability checks.
M.P.'s know this Gambling Commission is a shambles. I have been in regular contact with mine and reently sent him this article. He goes racing and has a bet himself, occasionally.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/i-dont-think-they-truly-understand-a-lot-of-betting-concerns-raised-over-gambling-commission-consultation-a6kI83Y8lDRI/
This was his response.
Its truly appalling that new regulations can be put in place by a) those that don’t get the industry, b) those that don’t get the public and c) that wont work.
It does seem to me however that they are impotent in respect of this legislation.
Keep sending this stuff through please as its useful.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/i-dont-think-they-truly-understand-a-lot-of-betting-concerns-raised-over-gambling-commission-consultation-a6kI83Y8lDRI/
This was his response.
Its truly appalling that new regulations can be put in place by a) those that don’t get the industry, b) those that don’t get the public and c) that wont work.
It does seem to me however that they are impotent in respect of this legislation.
Keep sending this stuff through please as its useful.
Not much good blaming GC if the government does not provide a workable policy or introduce a new betting/gaming licence that can differentiate between betting on sports and betting on casinos; GC was in cahoot with bookies previously. Now GC is being fed to the lions, and bookies escape scot-free. It's the bookies who are responsible for AC.
Until a new betting/gaming licence that distinguishes between sports and casino is introduced I'll go along with the present AC even if it conveniences the majority here. The bookies must be stopped from managing horsearcing and betting to suit themselves.
Until a new betting/gaming licence that distinguishes between sports and casino is introduced I'll go along with the present AC even if it conveniences the majority here. The bookies must be stopped from managing horsearcing and betting to suit themselves.
So someone could put £5 a week on Labour to win the GE and get flagged up for binge gambling checks if it loses, but someone doing £150 every week will never get flagged.
Still dosent make sense anyway,blank,you’ve said the same thing twice,
5 quid a week and 150 a week,so either both or neither would get flagged.
5 quid a week and 150 a week,so either both or neither would get flagged.
All the £5s get settled together so 5 years x 52 weeks
x £5 all settled as loser in one go as opposed
to guy losing 150 each week...
x £5 all settled as loser in one go as opposed
to guy losing 150 each week...
lol bnb
After 4 years you've built up just over £1k liability on Labour not winning, if it loses you have lost over a grand in 24 hours.
The second example you've lost about £30K in 4 years but never more than £1k in a day, or £2k over a 3 month period.
After 4 years you've built up just over £1k liability on Labour not winning, if it loses you have lost over a grand in 24 hours.
The second example you've lost about £30K in 4 years but never more than £1k in a day, or £2k over a 3 month period.
impossible, there we go again trying to introduce logic! I've already quoted the GC's self determined mandate on other threads about this, to push the NL as hard as possible. They can't categorise games of skill differently to r i g g e d random games of chance, and then promote NL above all other forms of betting. a) they don't actually care about people losing fortunes where the odds are permanently stacked against them, b) they don't want to promote betting as a legitimate long term way of earning an income.
Cider - I don't entirely disagree with you about the need to differentiate gaming from sports/racing betting - but why do you think games of chance are ****?
(eg) roulette is profitable enough to finance huge land-based casinos with real croupiers and other staff - the electronic version is a massive margin product with little cost to run - why would you fix it?
(eg) roulette is profitable enough to finance huge land-based casinos with real croupiers and other staff - the electronic version is a massive margin product with little cost to run - why would you fix it?
Blank. Cheers,didn’t realise,thanks for explaining.
Not read them,because they won’t come in,to any real hassle,it’s just all bluster.
90-99% of punters won’t be affected,
They re just flying kites of fear,then everyone’s relieved when the rules are landed.
Not read them,because they won’t come in,to any real hassle,it’s just all bluster.
90-99% of punters won’t be affected,
They re just flying kites of fear,then everyone’s relieved when the rules are landed.
100% of serious punters will be affected.
100% of once-a-year Grand National punters won't be affected.
100% of once-a-year Grand National punters won't be affected.
r i g g e d in the sense that you can't beat them through skill, only luck. this is why the NL is horrendous to me. it sells an impossible dream, essentially to the poor. unfortunately, the wider population have very little realistic concept of probability. people do win the jackpot of course, which allows it to be pimped as a plausible outcome.
If I was part of a government think-tank on this 1st and foremost I'll ban all forms of gambling adverts on terrestrial tv and mobile. I'll also introduce 2 sets of gambling/gaming licences eg one for sports - a game of skills; another for casino - a game of chance.
I'll also dissolve the Gambling Commission (too tainted to be useful and trusted) with a new body set-up. One of their remits is to inform the BHA (horseracing) to reflect autonomy and independence - no influence from bookies.
Post this I'll introduce a watered down AC (if necessary) supervised by an independent body with FCA qualification and experience for a period determined by workability and success paid for by bookies; bookies choosing not to participate will self-exclude from the UK betting industry.
I'll also dissolve the Gambling Commission (too tainted to be useful and trusted) with a new body set-up. One of their remits is to inform the BHA (horseracing) to reflect autonomy and independence - no influence from bookies.
Post this I'll introduce a watered down AC (if necessary) supervised by an independent body with FCA qualification and experience for a period determined by workability and success paid for by bookies; bookies choosing not to participate will self-exclude from the UK betting industry.
The bookmakers association don’t buy the chancellor a Xmas tree every year for nothing,shipped from Norway every year,look tough,be weak,move on,
I’m hoping they come in so rishi can get on with his 5 pledges.
1.stop the boats
2.half inflation.
3.reduce waiting lists
4.grow the economy.
5.reduce non runners in 16 runner hcps.
I’m hoping they come in so rishi can get on with his 5 pledges.
1.stop the boats
2.half inflation.
3.reduce waiting lists
4.grow the economy.
5.reduce non runners in 16 runner hcps.
Agreed, the NL is a regressive tax on the poor used mainly for the benefit of the middle-classes, but that aside I don't think it was too harmful in the form originally launched; you maybe do a £1 line of your lucky numbers yourself and another pound in a work syndicate and have a couple of days of dreaming before Saturday night sends you back to earth.
Not hugely different to doing a 1p EW Heinz on the outsiders on the card in the vain hope of taking the bookie for their £1m payout limit.
Scratchcards, on the other hand...
Not hugely different to doing a 1p EW Heinz on the outsiders on the card in the vain hope of taking the bookie for their £1m payout limit.
Scratchcards, on the other hand...
Scratch cards are massively abused,no checks a lot of people buy these,because they believe a third goes to good causes no one seems bothered,not sure a third does,think that’s the main lottery.
I don't have any numbers on this, they probably don't exist, one wonders how much of the taxpayer funded state handouts are recycled via lottery products.
For a lot of people they probably are harmless. But they are mis sold, and the products can be addictive. There is no evidence I've seen that the GC is concerned with unaffordable spending on Camelot products. Or that post code lottery crap that is regularly shilled. I also see other things shilled, Omaze is it? One that does shiny new sports cars as well, BOTB? I expect the regulation is minimal to none. You can tell when these ads go out who they are targeting, and the people employed to shill them.
For a lot of people they probably are harmless. But they are mis sold, and the products can be addictive. There is no evidence I've seen that the GC is concerned with unaffordable spending on Camelot products. Or that post code lottery crap that is regularly shilled. I also see other things shilled, Omaze is it? One that does shiny new sports cars as well, BOTB? I expect the regulation is minimal to none. You can tell when these ads go out who they are targeting, and the people employed to shill them.
On the main point,why are the tories pushing this.
Blair and brown pushed for super casinos,after abolishing betting tax.
It goes back to the Victorian do-gooders.righteous people trying to tell the feckless how they should live their lives,this resonates with a lot of voters,who aren’t feckless,so it’s a vote winner,hence their interference.
Blair and brown pushed for super casinos,after abolishing betting tax.
It goes back to the Victorian do-gooders.righteous people trying to tell the feckless how they should live their lives,this resonates with a lot of voters,who aren’t feckless,so it’s a vote winner,hence their interference.
A Leceister man who won a £3 million Cornish home with a £25 online draw ticket has listed the house for “offers over £4 million” just weeks after winning.
Uttam Parmar, 58, was named the winner of the Omaze Million Pound House Draw in August which saw him win a four-bedroom home in Rock, Cornwall.
The home, which was valued at £3 million when Parmar won it, came mortgage-free and with legal fees and stamp duties included. Parmar was also given £50,000 cash to help him “settle in”.
£25 a pop !
Uttam Parmar, 58, was named the winner of the Omaze Million Pound House Draw in August which saw him win a four-bedroom home in Rock, Cornwall.
The home, which was valued at £3 million when Parmar won it, came mortgage-free and with legal fees and stamp duties included. Parmar was also given £50,000 cash to help him “settle in”.
£25 a pop !
How Omaze is regulated
Omaze is a prize draw as opposed to a lottery, meaning it is not regulated by the Gambling Commission. Oakes said this is because its draws are not “lotteries, gaming or gambling”.
“The introduction of a prominent and fair free entry route distinguishes prize draws from those activities. Entrants are able to enter Omaze prize draws via a paid-for-route online or for the cost of a stamp by post,” he said.
Omaze is regulated by the Fundraising Regulator, but it cannot regulate all of its business activity
Omaze is a prize draw as opposed to a lottery, meaning it is not regulated by the Gambling Commission. Oakes said this is because its draws are not “lotteries, gaming or gambling”.
“The introduction of a prominent and fair free entry route distinguishes prize draws from those activities. Entrants are able to enter Omaze prize draws via a paid-for-route online or for the cost of a stamp by post,” he said.
Omaze is regulated by the Fundraising Regulator, but it cannot regulate all of its business activity
its draws are not “lotteries, gaming or gambling
ffs, sometimes you just want to give up!
ffs, sometimes you just want to give up!
Further down the line>>>>>>>> your bank will stop you depositing money into a gambling site once you have exceeded your weekly/monthly limit. Once the UK becomes a cashless society big brother will tell you how to spend your money or how not to spend it.
In order to get a vague sense of how likely or otherwise you are to win an Omaze house, we can do some rough mathematics. According to the website, 80% of the funds that the company receives go to charity. The 20% that remains is used to both pay for the prize and to cover any expenses that Omaze incur. We can use that information to look at a previous house that was won through Omaze, one based in Ascot in the United Kingdom, and reverse-engineer some rough chances for people to end up victorious.
The first thing we need to do is get the £3.5 million that is needed to pay for the house, given that that is how much it was valued at. We know that 20% of 17.5 million is 3.5 million, so that is a solid starting point. If we round it up to 18 million in order to cover any expenses incurred in the setting up of the competition, we are able to surmise that Omaze will need to sell in the region of £18 million worth of tickets to wash their face. The most popular amount chosen by players is 40 entries for £25, with some giving more and some less.
On that basis, 720,000 people will have had to have chosen the £25 ‘donation’ in order to reach our target of £18 million. Realistically, it is probably likely to be a little more than that because not everyone will have chosen to opt for the most tickets. As a result, we can guess that about two million to three million people will have bought tickets of some form for the house sweepstake in question. Of course, each person might have bought a different number of tickets, which then confuses things further and makes the maths more difficult.
That is to say, if 720,000 people spent £25, each of them would have 40 tickets. That means that there would be 28.8 million tickets in the draw for those people alone. All of a sudden, your chances change depending not only on how many people it is that have bought a ticket but also how many tickets they have bought. There is a limit to the number of tickets that you can buy, but even so you can soon find yourself doing crazy sums to try to figure out what your chances are of success in the Omaze draw for a house.
wow. just wow.
The first thing we need to do is get the £3.5 million that is needed to pay for the house, given that that is how much it was valued at. We know that 20% of 17.5 million is 3.5 million, so that is a solid starting point. If we round it up to 18 million in order to cover any expenses incurred in the setting up of the competition, we are able to surmise that Omaze will need to sell in the region of £18 million worth of tickets to wash their face. The most popular amount chosen by players is 40 entries for £25, with some giving more and some less.
On that basis, 720,000 people will have had to have chosen the £25 ‘donation’ in order to reach our target of £18 million. Realistically, it is probably likely to be a little more than that because not everyone will have chosen to opt for the most tickets. As a result, we can guess that about two million to three million people will have bought tickets of some form for the house sweepstake in question. Of course, each person might have bought a different number of tickets, which then confuses things further and makes the maths more difficult.
That is to say, if 720,000 people spent £25, each of them would have 40 tickets. That means that there would be 28.8 million tickets in the draw for those people alone. All of a sudden, your chances change depending not only on how many people it is that have bought a ticket but also how many tickets they have bought. There is a limit to the number of tickets that you can buy, but even so you can soon find yourself doing crazy sums to try to figure out what your chances are of success in the Omaze draw for a house.
wow. just wow.
TheAnorak can wait for the outcome and could reopen his account without difficulty….unless we go N Korea style and everyone walks away.
British racing will be having a few sleepless nights…..
British racing will be having a few sleepless nights…..
not sure if someone has said already, but this thread and TA have an article on the racing post:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/racing-must-react-as-another-leading-punter-says-no-to-affordability-checks-aeIOk8A4acAC/
https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/racing-must-react-as-another-leading-punter-says-no-to-affordability-checks-aeIOk8A4acAC/
saddo, just catching up on today's posts. Thank you, you totally owned Dave the Labeller with your post, exposed him for the repugnant hypocrite that he is.
Sounds like Dave's looking forward to his GM plant / insect burgers, YUM YUM.
Sounds like Dave's looking forward to his GM plant / insect burgers, YUM YUM.
Neil Clark
@NeilClark66
6 Aug
Bought this quickly by accident thinking it was real Chicken Tikka! Took one taste and spat it out as it was awful! And this is what they want us to eat instead of the real thing. No thanks. What a grim, joyless life if we only had this terrible tasting ‘plant based’ food to eat
https://twitter.com/NeilClark66/status/1688082402713690112
Don't worry folks, it's only a conspiracy theory
@NeilClark66
6 Aug
Bought this quickly by accident thinking it was real Chicken Tikka! Took one taste and spat it out as it was awful! And this is what they want us to eat instead of the real thing. No thanks. What a grim, joyless life if we only had this terrible tasting ‘plant based’ food to eat
https://twitter.com/NeilClark66/status/1688082402713690112
Don't worry folks, it's only a conspiracy theory
Alan -just want to say I'm a big fan of your writings on here and the racing forum.
Wishing you success and happiness in the future.
Wishing you success and happiness in the future.
What is to stop a gambler registering with the tax office as a self employed professional gambler.
in other words its your job.Get a loan of a few grand. lodge it into a gambling account and off you go.
if someone wants to see the account its no problem.you will win or lose.if you get a bad run,get another loan,and the worst that can happen is if you win a few hundred grand just pay income tax after your expenses are deducted.
And the tax office will give you a full year to get started.Make sure you keep records of every bet you place win or lose.
And if you are as good as most people on this forum at gambling ,you will be happy to pay income tax on your profits.
in other words its your job.Get a loan of a few grand. lodge it into a gambling account and off you go.
if someone wants to see the account its no problem.you will win or lose.if you get a bad run,get another loan,and the worst that can happen is if you win a few hundred grand just pay income tax after your expenses are deducted.
And the tax office will give you a full year to get started.Make sure you keep records of every bet you place win or lose.
And if you are as good as most people on this forum at gambling ,you will be happy to pay income tax on your profits.
Alan Potts gave a free autobiography on here about 4 years ago….
Rather than pay for publication etc he put a link up, and a great read it is.
I’m too squiffy but a link up, but it’s well worth a read of self deprecation.
Rather than pay for publication etc he put a link up, and a great read it is.
I’m too squiffy but a link up, but it’s well worth a read of self deprecation.
https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/31522333/a-new-book---and-its-free?post_id=558113623#558113623
Anorak book link
Anorak book link
saddo • August 13, 2023 2:08 PM BST
You didn't care about anyone else citing these things when they were forcing people to have injections or lose their job, and houses were being searched for illegal visitors a while back.
SUSPENSION OF ASTRA VENECA VACCINE
By dave1357 on 15 Mar 21 18:13
"No vaccine no job" would be a slam dunk win at an employment tribunal.
Just because I call out conspiritards and misinformationists like GEORGE.B and yourself or join in your pathetic circle jerking, don't make wider assumptions.
You didn't care about anyone else citing these things when they were forcing people to have injections or lose their job, and houses were being searched for illegal visitors a while back.
SUSPENSION OF ASTRA VENECA VACCINE
By dave1357 on 15 Mar 21 18:13
"No vaccine no job" would be a slam dunk win at an employment tribunal.
Just because I call out conspiritards and misinformationists like GEORGE.B and yourself or join in your pathetic circle jerking, don't make wider assumptions.
Dave the Labeller, post some examples of this "misinformation".
This c*nt spent three years on here attacking people who questioned official narratives, now produces a post and says look: I believe in people's rights, honest guv.
Bet he had it in his 'favourites' for when it was needed.
This c*nt spent three years on here attacking people who questioned official narratives, now produces a post and says look: I believe in people's rights, honest guv.
Bet he had it in his 'favourites' for when it was needed.
Oh dear, from the same thread.
dave135715 Mar 21 18:00
there won't be millions.
If another country refuses to let you enter unless you are vaccinated, that it their right. probably a good way to keep out the riff-raff.
If you didn't have the potion, you were riff raff in Dave the Labeller's eyes.
Contradicting himself again.
dave135715 Mar 21 18:00
there won't be millions.
If another country refuses to let you enter unless you are vaccinated, that it their right. probably a good way to keep out the riff-raff.
If you didn't have the potion, you were riff raff in Dave the Labeller's eyes.
Contradicting himself again.
dave135715 Mar 21 18:16
you really over estimate the numbers of thickos/attention seekers there are in the country. All the economically active ones will quickly fall in line as soon as "no jab no tenerife" starts
"fall in line"
fall in line with what, Dave the Labeller, mandated jabs to go abroad?
you really over estimate the numbers of thickos/attention seekers there are in the country. All the economically active ones will quickly fall in line as soon as "no jab no tenerife" starts
"fall in line"
fall in line with what, Dave the Labeller, mandated jabs to go abroad?
GEORGE.B too thick to realise that the statement "If another country refuses to let you enter unless you are vaccinated, that it their right" is so completely correct, that it has broken his tiny brain.
And also another statement which was absolutely correct, that thick George doesn't understand.
dave1357
it is a lol tho that the same ppl who have been decrying masks and staying at home are scared witless about getting vaccinated.
^ corporate jab pusher
it is a lol tho that the same ppl who have been decrying masks and staying at home are scared witless about getting vaccinated.
^ corporate jab pusher
keep posting GEORGE.B you are only proving yourself and saddo to be completely wrong.
dave1357
Yup the stats actually seem to indicate that the AZ vaccine prevents blood clots.
That must be why it's been quietly removed from the market and banned in several countries
Yup the stats actually seem to indicate that the AZ vaccine prevents blood clots.
That must be why it's been quietly removed from the market and banned in several countries
dave1357
^^^ok I'm terrified of blood clots - but the AZ vaccine seems to reduce the chance of getting them.
We can trust dave on this one, he's a professor of BS at Imperial College, London
^^^ok I'm terrified of blood clots - but the AZ vaccine seems to reduce the chance of getting them.
We can trust dave on this one, he's a professor of BS at Imperial College, London
dave1357
^^And I like trolling anti-vaxxers as they almost all hold disgusting/idiotic views about everything.
Fair to say, Dave doesn't believe in freedom of speech, say anything he doesn't like or stray from the narrative, and he's coming for ya.
What a hate-fuelled post that was.
^^And I like trolling anti-vaxxers as they almost all hold disgusting/idiotic views about everything.
Fair to say, Dave doesn't believe in freedom of speech, say anything he doesn't like or stray from the narrative, and he's coming for ya.
What a hate-fuelled post that was.
Dave1357
^^^take an aspirin to stop the blood clots instead
Not much sympathy for the people who were shown in coroner's courts to have died from clots following the jabs, have you Dave?
^^^take an aspirin to stop the blood clots instead
Not much sympathy for the people who were shown in coroner's courts to have died from clots following the jabs, have you Dave?
Yes GEORGE, you thicko
dave1357
^^^ok I'm terrified of blood clots - but the AZ vaccine seems to reduce the chance of getting them.
and
dave1357
^^And I like trolling anti-vaxxers as they almost all hold disgusting/idiotic views about everything.
were together part of a little joke. Not a good joke because Foinavon didn't get it.
Aren't you getting embarrassed now George? Wasting your life trolling through my old posts and being unable to find any that support your assertion of hypocrisy?
dave1357
^^^ok I'm terrified of blood clots - but the AZ vaccine seems to reduce the chance of getting them.
and
dave1357
^^And I like trolling anti-vaxxers as they almost all hold disgusting/idiotic views about everything.
were together part of a little joke. Not a good joke because Foinavon didn't get it.
Aren't you getting embarrassed now George? Wasting your life trolling through my old posts and being unable to find any that support your assertion of hypocrisy?
dave1357
blood clots don't appear to be a side effect, so how could they be identified?
You want to tell that to Lisa Shaw's family, Dave, she left a seven-year-old son behind.
blood clots don't appear to be a side effect, so how could they be identified?
You want to tell that to Lisa Shaw's family, Dave, she left a seven-year-old son behind.
Aren't you getting embarrassed now George? Wasting your life trolling through my old posts and being unable to find any that support your assertion of hypocrisy?
dave1357
blood clots don't appear to be a side effect, so how could they be identified?
and he accuses me of "misinformation"
blood clots don't appear to be a side effect, so how could they be identified?
and he accuses me of "misinformation"
Aren't you getting embarrassed now George? Wasting your life trolling through my old posts and being unable to find any that support your assertion of hypocrisy?
you missed this one, I wonder why?
dave1357 • March 15, 2021 5:19 PM GMT
think there are human rights act issues - which is a bit ironic as the venn diagram for anti-vaxxers and ppl that hate the HRA is almost a circle.
dave1357 • March 15, 2021 5:19 PM GMT
think there are human rights act issues - which is a bit ironic as the venn diagram for anti-vaxxers and ppl that hate the HRA is almost a circle.
Wasting your life trolling through my old posts and being unable to find any that support your assertion of hypocrisy?
they're all from the thread that *YOU* referenced above.
I didn't have to look very far.
they're all from the thread that *YOU* referenced above.
I didn't have to look very far.
btw this is in the context
Reynard • March 16, 2021 12:16 PM GMT
The decision not to test these 'vaccines' before being licensed is beginning to look like an error of astronomical proportions .
Anaphylactic shock and blood clots are potential side effects that can be easily identified . One has to wonder about potential side effects that are less easy to identify such as genetic disorders etc.
dave1357 • March 16, 2021 12:42 PM GMT
blood clots don't appear to be a side effect, so how could they be identified?
ie they didn't appear as a side effect in trials.
But you would be too thick to understand that.
Any evidence of hypocrisy GEORGE.B, after you have completely derailed this thread like the pathetic selfish individual you are.
Reynard • March 16, 2021 12:16 PM GMT
The decision not to test these 'vaccines' before being licensed is beginning to look like an error of astronomical proportions .
Anaphylactic shock and blood clots are potential side effects that can be easily identified . One has to wonder about potential side effects that are less easy to identify such as genetic disorders etc.
dave1357 • March 16, 2021 12:42 PM GMT
blood clots don't appear to be a side effect, so how could they be identified?
ie they didn't appear as a side effect in trials.
But you would be too thick to understand that.
Any evidence of hypocrisy GEORGE.B, after you have completely derailed this thread like the pathetic selfish individual you are.
You're like a cornered rat.
It was *YOU* who "derailed" it after yet another labelling attack on something I'd posted.
dave1357 13 Aug 23 08:06
is it any wonder the ukgc/govt ignore us, with loons like GEORGE.B endlessly spouting on about Irish cows.
It was *YOU* who "derailed" it after yet another labelling attack on something I'd posted.
dave1357 13 Aug 23 08:06
is it any wonder the ukgc/govt ignore us, with loons like GEORGE.B endlessly spouting on about Irish cows.
Oh… what a pity, it’s just self indulgent now…. to ruin a good thread.
Go and have a battle elsewhere NOW PLEASE.
Go and have a battle elsewhere NOW PLEASE.
saxon farm, there is a block facility, no-one's stopping you from using it, that's what it's there for.
"block user"
just click on that. There you go, 'problem' solved.
just click on that. There you go, 'problem' solved.
Indeed…..I occasionally use it for idiots.
However GEORGE and dave1357…. I do not class you as idiots, but just for now lads, take it elsewhere if it’s not too much trouble.
However GEORGE and dave1357…. I do not class you as idiots, but just for now lads, take it elsewhere if it’s not too much trouble.
Can't see what you posted saxon farm, ya blocked!
saxon farm 13 Aug 23 22:38
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user.
You can manage your blocked users list here .
Ah, bliss!
saxon farm 13 Aug 23 22:38
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user.
You can manage your blocked users list here .
Ah, bliss!
Hang on a tick while I unblock you, so I can see what ya saying.
It's just sad to see as someone who has loved betting since playing 3 card brag at school in the early 80s, see betting transcend into the abyss. Winners will not be tolerated. Losers will not be tolerated. A hopeless regulator attempting an impossible task, based on zero research. The result can only be a complete mess. Anyone with any knowledge in the industry knows this.
The only way to stop people who are addicted and can't afford to bet, from betting, is to stop every form of betting altogether. These measures won't stop the addicted, the addicted will find a way. They'll only stop those that aren't addicted. Of course there will be some that aren't addicted that can't really afford it who will stop, because let's face it, there is a standard of living crisis and people are struggling to buy food and pay rent, but that could also be applied to smoking, drinking, and any form of non essential shopping. Using some arbitrary measure, if everybody who can't afford to do something is prevented from doing it, the economy will grind to a halt, so it's a dumb ideal in the first place anyway.
However, I think the aim is to stop compulsive gamblers from topping themselves. At least that's the reason given from the government. But there's too many options, and too many operators want this cash as it's their easiest revenue. I doubt these measures and intrusions will make much difference at all to addicts. If a pub bars a heavy drinker, or a shop bars a heavy smoker, they just move further down the road. If the pub barred a casual drinker, he's far less likely than the heavy drinker to move down the road.
The only way to stop people who are addicted and can't afford to bet, from betting, is to stop every form of betting altogether. These measures won't stop the addicted, the addicted will find a way. They'll only stop those that aren't addicted. Of course there will be some that aren't addicted that can't really afford it who will stop, because let's face it, there is a standard of living crisis and people are struggling to buy food and pay rent, but that could also be applied to smoking, drinking, and any form of non essential shopping. Using some arbitrary measure, if everybody who can't afford to do something is prevented from doing it, the economy will grind to a halt, so it's a dumb ideal in the first place anyway.
However, I think the aim is to stop compulsive gamblers from topping themselves. At least that's the reason given from the government. But there's too many options, and too many operators want this cash as it's their easiest revenue. I doubt these measures and intrusions will make much difference at all to addicts. If a pub bars a heavy drinker, or a shop bars a heavy smoker, they just move further down the road. If the pub barred a casual drinker, he's far less likely than the heavy drinker to move down the road.
its all silly.before gambling on the internet and bookmakers started people would gather at street corners and play pitch and toss,
then the would have poker games in someones house.In the pub if there was a horse race of football match people would gamble among themselves.And it will return to those days .
Great post by CLYDEBANK BY THE WAY.
then the would have poker games in someones house.In the pub if there was a horse race of football match people would gamble among themselves.And it will return to those days .
Great post by CLYDEBANK BY THE WAY.
Yep 6k in here or 200 into 30 bookies. One nochsnce.tother no probs
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539