|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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% |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
@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. |
|
By:
"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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Sorry to see you go. Good luck.
|
|
By:
Cider not just on this topic it seems these people who are allowed to make decisions have no idea of the real world .
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Won't lose m8, bad example.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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... |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
100% of serious punters will be affected.
100% of once-a-year Grand National punters won't be affected. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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... |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 ! |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
its draws are not “lotteries, gaming or gambling
ffs, sometimes you just want to give up! |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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….. |