There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
15 Aug 23
16:45
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
The rationale. Bought in to curb suicides and mental torment from addiction.
The evidence for them working to cure above? Don't think there is any evidence. I don't personally see why it should work. There are plenty of avenues to gamble and if you are hooked and bet like an amateur there are plenty of outlets that will take your money. They are likely to put off many of those not addicted though. It may also push the addicted towards unscrupulous illegal outlets with no safeguards.
Result: Probable FAIL
The collateral damage. Tens of thousands of punters facing controls of how they spend their own money. Other than illegal activities I'm not aware of any other non essential expenditure subject to these controls. The public wouldn't stand for it. Not to mention expenditure controls are seriously bad for the economy. In this instance the betting industry in the UK.
Result Certain FAIL
The checks themselves. Effective, simple and trouble free mass testing is simply not possible. That aside there are three basic elements to affordability: income, expenditure and assets. To base it just on income is farcical. If you were going to base it on one alone the most obvious is assets as this is what you've got left after income and expenditure. I'm not advocating that at all as that would be farcical too.
Result Certain FAIL
The levels of the checks. A loss of £125 in any one month results in a soft credit check. That's equivalent to 10 packets of cigarettes a month, 29 pints a month, or an overnight stay in a nice hotel. If having the only checks on any non essential expenditure is bad enough the level of the checks are absurdly low and a kick in the teeth. Further, a rolling 3 month loss of £1k is being advised to trigger the more invasive full (income only) checks. Now, if you won £5k on the 1st of July, lost £1k on the 2nd of July, and won £5k on the 1st of October. On the 30th September you have a rolling £1k loss. That is absurd. But the thing is almost anyone but a long term winner, and even many long term winners, betting in anything other than tenners and twenties, will at some point have a rolling £1k loss over 3 months. It betrays a total lack of understanding of sports betting to think otherwise.
Result: Certain FAIL and the feeling that the people devising the checks hate gamblers and betting or are hopelessly out of touch with betting in general.
There's not one aspect of the detail that makes any sense or has any logic or meaningful research behind it.
The evidence for them working to cure above? Don't think there is any evidence. I don't personally see why it should work. There are plenty of avenues to gamble and if you are hooked and bet like an amateur there are plenty of outlets that will take your money. They are likely to put off many of those not addicted though. It may also push the addicted towards unscrupulous illegal outlets with no safeguards.
Result: Probable FAIL
The collateral damage. Tens of thousands of punters facing controls of how they spend their own money. Other than illegal activities I'm not aware of any other non essential expenditure subject to these controls. The public wouldn't stand for it. Not to mention expenditure controls are seriously bad for the economy. In this instance the betting industry in the UK.
Result Certain FAIL
The checks themselves. Effective, simple and trouble free mass testing is simply not possible. That aside there are three basic elements to affordability: income, expenditure and assets. To base it just on income is farcical. If you were going to base it on one alone the most obvious is assets as this is what you've got left after income and expenditure. I'm not advocating that at all as that would be farcical too.
Result Certain FAIL
The levels of the checks. A loss of £125 in any one month results in a soft credit check. That's equivalent to 10 packets of cigarettes a month, 29 pints a month, or an overnight stay in a nice hotel. If having the only checks on any non essential expenditure is bad enough the level of the checks are absurdly low and a kick in the teeth. Further, a rolling 3 month loss of £1k is being advised to trigger the more invasive full (income only) checks. Now, if you won £5k on the 1st of July, lost £1k on the 2nd of July, and won £5k on the 1st of October. On the 30th September you have a rolling £1k loss. That is absurd. But the thing is almost anyone but a long term winner, and even many long term winners, betting in anything other than tenners and twenties, will at some point have a rolling £1k loss over 3 months. It betrays a total lack of understanding of sports betting to think otherwise.
Result: Certain FAIL and the feeling that the people devising the checks hate gamblers and betting or are hopelessly out of touch with betting in general.
There's not one aspect of the detail that makes any sense or has any logic or meaningful research behind it.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 178
|
By:
tens of 1000,s of punters
this is a dedicated racing forum and vast maj of those on it have had no checks |
|
By:
The big bookies can't help themselves when there are some easy pickings, they have had chance after chance to act responsibly but are unable to do so.I can remember a case with Mecca about fifty years ago about an worker doing the firms cash in the shops, Mecca employed a private detective to follow him so knew all about him and allowed him to keep dropping the cash. How long ago was it Ladbrokes lost their casino licences?One of the Sporting Life writers (Jack Logan possibly) joked that the judge had decided that Ladbrokes were judged to be unfit to take bets from the upper classes but were OK to take bets from the working classes(in the shops)The bookies have had numerous chances to reform remember the £5 million IOU to the Halifax.I am really sorry for any punter but something had to be done.
|
|
By:
1st time poster. The backlog on Betfair 2 years ago for suspended accounts was around 3 months. Either BF are hopelessly incompetent or that is a lot of accounts. Sorting out 10 accounts per day is 900 alone. That's 2 years ago and there are plenty of other bookies. That's also before these recommendations come into force. I'd be shocked if we are not talking tens of thousands
|
|
By:
The idea that bookies are getting punished while they do very little objecting shows what a fallacy that argument is.
The people who suffer will be punters, paying for the lack of control by arrogant losers who neither want nor seek help, and will be the first to avoid restrictions. |
|
By:
Talk from the GC is around 3% of accounts. Vast majority will be inactive or once a year so 3% means prolly means nearer 15-20%. Skybet prolly has a million UK account holders (mostly inactive ofc) so that's 30,000. Easily going to be tens of thousands.
|
|
By:
It’s. No coincidence imo that it was BFs CEO who has challenged these proposals as it’s the exchange that will be disproportionately affected.
The bookies get to keep their 80% client base they want while having legitimate argument to shut down difficult punters that make life hard for them. While these winners found a home on bf and paid a privilege in the form of PC. The law of unchanged would force bf to challenge those punters at some point, ridding the liquidity from the markets further. |
|
By:
Like yourself Clydebank, I took the time to fill in the questionnaire and I suspect most of us who did took the opportunity to knock down their ludicrous intentions. You would hope that a large percentage of the Racing Industry and even Bookmakers have done the same, doing nothing is simply giving in to the notion that legislation has already been passed.
If you took a snapshot of respondents on here you could be forgiven for thinking it is all done and dusted which given such a snapshot would also give the GC the evidence they seek to push their proposals through. Stand by for advice on pensions, hedge funds and just about anything other than the actual subject, sadly. |
|
By:
My responses were much the same:
Neither you nor any gambling operator can possibly know enough about an individual's circumstances to justify controlling their behaviour in this manner. The fact that you're refusing to allow an individual to use their savings as a gambling float is sufficient in itself to prove you do not understand this activity. An activity which is completely legal, I might remind you. And one for which there are no end of readily available illegal outlets. You are going to drive vast numbers of people to direct their savings into the hands of these illegal operators. It's the inevitable outcome of your arrogance in believing you could possibly assess an individual's circumstances better than they can themselves. __________ To what extent do you agree with the proposed threshold of a financial vulnerability check based on public data (eg bankruptcy) if a customer has a net loss of £500 in a rolling 365 days? Strongly disagree Please give the reasons for your answer: If someone is spending less on gambling per week than the price of two pints of beer, then they're doing themselves a lot less harm than they would be if they were drinking those two pints of beer. This is insane. ______ 91 Please provide any views you may have on the best way for gambling operators to inform customers about the potential collection of their financial data for these purposes. Do not even attempt it. No one with any sense would ever hand financial data to a gambling operator. If the general public knew what you are encouraging here, the outcry would have you all out of a job. |
|
By:
missaing the obvious point out of the 10,s of 1000,s how many will refuse to play ball aqnd stop punting, if 10,s of 1000,s stop punting maybe they think it rather proves their point, like people who stopped smoking rather than smoking outside pubs,clubs etc
|
|
By:
There seems to be quite a commonly held view that this is all the big betting firms fault, and that they deserve punishment.
Whatever truth there is in the first half of that statement, and I’m sure there is a lot, they are certainly not the ones being punished. Getting access to all their customers financial data, bank statements and wage slips etc is not punishment. It just enables them to profile and target customers further. Their ideal customer now is a wealthy, high earner with lots of disposable income, who loses. They are now getting all the data and information needed to target these individuals. They are the new ideal customers, as they can both rinse them, and not get a fine for doing so. The people getting punished are the punters. The ones getting their accounts closed as they are deemed not worth the risk of getting a fine for, and the ones having to give up their right to privacy and hand over all their personal financial documents. |
|
By:
I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet screaming and hopefully plenty of others.In one of my responses I mentioned the effect of Prohibition in the USA and how their proposals will have a similar effect on the racing industry and all others reliant on it.
|
|
By:
One of the comparisons I thought about AFTER I'd clicked Send, Cag!
So, well done for submitting it instead of me. |
|
By:
how can they target these punters if after a losing run ,when their credit is still been accepted they could blow the BOOKMAKER up and sell/tell their story of a how a bookmaker ignored the regs in order to bleed them,its why we,re here in the 1st place ,grooming losing high stake punters
|
|
By:
Yes, Booster. I made much the same point:
83 To what extent do you agree with the proposed requirements for data that must be included in an enhanced financial risk assessment for credit performance data and income and expenditure data, including current account turnover data? Strongly disagree 84 Please give your reasons for your answer. In particular, are there any other types of information that you think it would be valuable to gather at these thresholds to understand potential financial risk? This has already been dealt with, when the use of credit cards for funding deposits was quite correctly outlawed. But more generally, the issue is not expenditure. It's savings. By excluding savings from your assessment, you are deliberately excluding people who are cautious and careful about their commitments. Once again, the gambling operators will love you for this. |
|
By:
Before they didn’t know, so they got in trouble for it.
Now they have access to statements and bank balances and wage slips. They will know exactly how much each person is worth, and how much they can take off them without getting fined. It’s obvious what they are going to do with this data. This has nothing to do with protecting individuals, it’s all about the bookmaker protecting themselves from getting a fine. |
|
By:
If anyone wants to respond to this survey, you don't have to write any long, clever-dick essays like I did. That's just me. Simply go to the form and click on your answers to the list of proposals, from Strongly Agree down to Strongly Disagree. That's all. You can leave all the comment boxes blank if you want.
But just do that simple thing. If you can be bothered to type a response on here, you can surely be arsed to click a few tickboxes. The link to access the form is towards the bottom of the page here: https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/affordability-checks-explained-and-how-to-respond-to-the-gambling-commission-consultation-aklOV6K212Ko/ |
|
By:
people hand over this exact info ,+ how much they spend on drink,food,nights out,days out,betting, etc ,etc when wanting a mortgage,loan and dont have any problems with it,same banks whove been done for miss selling just about every financial product known to man
|
|
By:
They're not handing it to Betfair, are they. Don't be so disingenuous.
|
|
By:
the scores on doors currently
people fighting against cashless society fighting to prevent been made to use cash in betting shops,racecourses for the right to use cashless online betting and happy to give every detail of their weekly finanancial outgoings to obtain a mortgage /loan,but would rather pack in punting than give far few details to a bookmaker, SOUNDS ALOT LIKE OUR AULD FRIEND CAKISIM TO ME  |
|
By:
You would expect to hand over that information if applying for a mortgage. You’d expect to have to hand it over if seeking a loan or credit.
You shouldn’t have to hand it over if wanting to deposit £500 ( of your own money), into a betting account. |
|
By:
the arguement is you wouldnt trust anybody with your personal financial data but happy to hand it over to the very people found guilty multiple times for the very actions, they say their worried about
|
|
By:
1st time poster,your joining date says plenty,only April the 1st would have been slightly more of a pointer!!
Have YOU completed the survey or just happy to post nonsensical, erroneous stuff? |
|
By:
1stTP
What exactly is your rationale? You are speaking with a person in BoosterRooster who is telling you he did the things asked of him and he has been negatively impacted…. Do you assume some virtuous circle will magically appear where bookies get punished, even though there’s hardly any squealing from them going on? You are coming across as some kind of stooge, akin to the vanished TM |
|
By:
NO ,went the same way/place the 100 surveys a year go, DELETE BUTTON
but if i ever get the call/check i,ll post what i decide to do about it |
|
By:
as i,m basically retired ,not getting state pension or accessed private pension yet and living off savings ,i doubt i,d survive enought to bet £3.65 a day with mizz coates
|
|
By:
British racing is facing a growing crisis after another Grade 1-winning owner said on Tuesday that the inability to strike a sizeable bet on his horses because of affordability checks meant he had decided to quit the sport.
Carl Hinchy, whose biggest success came in 2020 when Riders Onthe Storm won the Grade 1 Betfair Ascot Chase, has owned horses in his own name for 13 years but said this season was likely to be his last. It comes a day after Classic-winning owner Phil Cunningham said he was struggling to get a bet on and being courted by illegal bookmakers, while Olly Harris, who like Hinchy has been successful at Grade 1 level, revealed he had stopped buying new horses because of affordability checks. For Hinchy, a solicitor who has landed a series of punts in nearly 20 years involved in the sport, the restrictive nature of affordability checks over the last few years has made it impossible for him to stay in the sport he loves. The Gambling Commission launched a consultation last month on the government's proposed financial risk checks, which will legally formalise them. Bettors have been alarmed by the details included in the proposals, notably that winnings should only be considered in net spend calculations for as little as one week. There is also concern about how "frictionless" the checks will truly be. "I've owned horses for 15-20 years and I've always been able to have bets on them, with varying success," Hinchy said. "Sometimes you do really really well, and you buy another horse and cover your training fees. You always took a view that between prize-money and betting you'd try and cover your expenditure. That was always the target, you didn't always achieve it but it was always the target. "I've always taken the view we want to have a real good bet when we've lined a horse up for a race, and not being able to do that waters down your desire to be involved in racing at all. You could win your season's training fees in October and then you're having a bit of fun. You're not getting that whole experience now, all you're doing is paying bills. "There's no point targeting a race either because it's almost impossible to get on. That's the really interesting and challenging exercise of owning a horse, plotting your way to a race from several months in advance and when it comes off it's the most incredible feeling." Fugitif bolts up in the 2m3½f handicap chase Fugitif: finished second at Cheltenham Festival for Carl Hinchy Credit: Getty Images Outlining the basic maths of the situation, he added: "Last season my total fees were £121,500. My share of prize-money was £94,000. I won the Old Roan Chase. I won a big race on Welsh National day and Fugitif came second three times at Cheltenham – including at the festival. So I'm doing well, but I'm still losing. And that's before you buy a horse for £60,000 who it turns out isn't any good, so you sell it for £20,000. That's another £40,000 gone." Hinchy has attempted to provide proof of wealth to a number of firms in order to continue his hobby, but has drawn the line at requests to see his account details. "I gave them a tax return showing I'd paid the best part of a million pounds in tax, a letter from my accountant saying I'd done a share sale of one of my businesses for a lot of money, I have properties in England and Spain, but they still want to look at my bank statements. "It's a step too far. They sent me articles about bookmakers being fined left, right and centre, but that's their business, this is mine and I'm not willing to give them any more. "The crux of it is I can go out tomorrow and buy a new powerboat. If I want to buy a new flat, I can do it, there should be no infringement on how you spend the money you've earned. It goes to the very heart of society. Politicians are not voted into power to restrict our rights. These are fundamental rights, it's our money, we've earned it, we can spend it how we choose. "But because of the period I've been involved with, when you could back your horses, I don't want any more involvement because the enjoyment I used to have, I can't have anymore. Do I carry on, and sink my own funds into racing? No I don't. "I've pretty much achieved everything I could have, we've won Grade 1s and 2s from a small number of horses and punched well above our weight. When you're doing it in tandem with being able to land a punt it becomes rewarding, challenging and it makes you want to do it. When you take that big chunk away you don't want to do it anymore. "Owners like me, we land a punt we stay in the game a couple more years. That's the heart and soul of it and they're ripping that away from you. I just can't make it pay anymore. That option's been taken away, despite some bookmakers still being very good, it's not the way it has traditionally been and you rally against the restrictions on your liberty and freedom." |
|
By:
You hand over your data to some randomer and as Ronnie R has said, savings are not taken into account so suddenly like APotts where you are not earning a monthly amount bar say pensions you are going to be excluded or severely restricted and everyone should just accept it and get on with - what a sh!tshow - a big owner has stopped buying horses on the back of these ''restrictions'' the sport is screwed if this goes ahead to the extent that is being suggested
what next breathlysers in pubs to see if you have drank over a certain amount and told to go home if you have yep nothing to worry about here at all... |
|
By:
breath test machines were in pubs 25yrs and more ago to give drinkers a heads up/guide
|
|
By:
so weve gone from owners telling us 24/7, YOU
cant make it pay cant get a bet on not my money blah blah, to i used to get enough of my money on to win substanial amounts not only to make it pay but buy more horses, rule number one in life its very hard to be a good liar you need to have a very good memory |
|
By:
never seen one being used in my life in a pub so news to me
anyway the argument remains that betting checks are going to be disastrous to the racing industry unless pulled back and targetted more sensibly than the case is right now |
|
By:
they took them out because people took the readings as gospel and not a guide
|
|
By:
They were nothing more than a gimmick 1st tp, like guess your weight scales!!! hth
|
|
By:
Neither have I north east and I’ve spent to much time in pubs in my life.
|
|
By:
Jimnast so have I though cut back as years go by - though nothing like a good sesh to remind yourself of your misspent youth or younger years!
|
|
By:
Absolutely north east don’t do the Sunday dinner session any more and that was my favourite until they extended the hours which I think spoiled Sundays ,home for 330 Sunday dinner a couple of hours Kip then waiting for the doors to open again at 7 bells.
Happy days |
|
By:
Are you well NEC? Hope to see you for the next compy!!
|
|
By:
bookies wet dream getting all this information handed to them.
can profile anyone betting with them till the cows come home. and share it with all their friends, legally. all worked out very nicely for them. didn't it ? |
|
By:
yeh doing good thanks, should manage next comp no probs
 |
|
By:
 |