There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 178 comments are related to the topic:
Affordability Checks - one almighty mess
Affordability Checks - one almighty mess
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 178
|
By:
yes cal i no what they were
remember one in THE SOUTHFIELD/THE STAR, on southfield rd in middlesbrough just proving the point weve been there ,done that no one died and we all lived to jog on to something else,and so called BIG BROTHER looked for another bogeyman to scare the easily SPARKED |
|
By:
they were in pubs around the same time ATM,s sprung up in middle of the pub lounge, as CAL say nothing legal or accurate more of a gimmick arcade game,but people did use them as a try have 3,4,5 pints before it said you were over limit
|
|
By:
BHA and saunas now they are so detached from the industry and its customers is just unbelievable.
|
|
By:
Other than providing the information, which nearly everyone has an issue with rightly or wrongly, ....
..... but why would owners that have horses in training, stop have horses in training just because they cannot have a bet on them? Have they not the wealth, and interest outside of having a bet, to keep horse in training?? |
|
By:
been a lot of nonsense. can't ride at 2 meetings ? jockey lives in newmarket. drives to yarmouth for a ride, drives home to newmarket. but for some reason can't pop into the racecourse next to his fking house to take up a ride at an evening meeting. can't ride at 2 meetings - but can ride one at doncaster and fly to dublin for another one at leopardstown.
|
|
By:
i,ll talkracing with racing people but never mention it with non racing people ,but the abscence of virtually any racing talk in work place these days is staggering,masterchef/food top subjects
you used to have to hide in toilet to avoid results if you,d taped racing,now litterally no one on site would no any result other than maybe the national |
|
By:
@cacique
"Have they not the wealth, and interest outside of having a bet, to keep horse in training??" I am sure they could, but if you are into racing enough to spend the kind of money it takes to keep racehorses in training, you are probably into racing enough to have enjoyed betting on it long before you reached that deeply into your pockets - and taking that away probably makes it a lot less fun? |
|
By:
they could all get on,oncourse with a bookmaker, betting shop, laying them to lose on the machine not so much,they say winning not how they win
|
|
By:
you only have to be able to afford to gamble online.
you can take 20 grand out the company safe and lose it on the first favourite at the racetrack. |
|
By:
at least bha have solved one issue whilst creating another,suddenly no ones getting restricted,but instead cant get enough in to accounts to get on all their losers which are eroding their bank,
 |
|
By:
I met someone at a racecourse bar, years ago. Retired/sold up factory owner from the North of England, widowed, no kids, plenty of money.
He told me that since his wife died he'd spent a huge sum keeping horses in training, and a slightly smaller sum backing them, let alone going racing whenever they ran. He wasn't chancing it, laying his horses when he had inside information, just loved having horses in training and backed them whenever they ran. |
|
By:
I don't mind providing my info for certain things, proof of identity etc...
What I do object to, is being told how I can spend my money, that I earnt. Which is why I would not provide the data on principle for affordability checks. Imagine having your spend limit on your leisure activity being set by someone else. Absolute and total madness. I would rather quit, than be patronised like that. And in my normal life, I would probably be considered a wokey by many of the far right on here, so it's got nothing to do with political persuasions either. |
|
By:
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.
I wasn't going to post on another thread about this subject, but this person has nailed it, at least it has been vocalised in the RP. This is not about how AC are implemented, the minutiae of the suggestions. It's the very fact that the establishment want to implement them in the first place! It is alien to our/my fundamental culture. Now they want to give people fat pills, instead of them perhaps needing to eat less mackie d's over the week. Fat pills paid for by me. Good lord it is so so depressing. |
|
By:
here we go again
same people who 24/7 for 5 yrs and more telling us theyve been restricted to getting buttons on,winners turned away ,now arguing theyve never been stopped spending their money as they like and want a return to auld days,been retricted to getting buttons on and winning accs closed down as this is now apparently classified as spending their moneyhow they like,even though they couldnt get on i cant keep up |
|
By:
The two things are so separate it is unreal. However I didn't get all of my accounts restricted to pennies overnight. In fact two of them still allow bets that would be worthwhile placing (albeit a fraction of the good days). My specials betting would likely not be affected by ACs, there are only two events that I have been seriously involved in, in the last year. Only perhaps politics, which is also very infrequent for me. I doubt that the exceptionally juicy conditions that transpired in 2019 will be replicated, but who knows.
|
|
By:
Got a text yesterday from "TopSpin" offering me bonuses of 525% up to 10,000 Euros. Almost certainly an illegal operation trying to scam me.
Looking at my junk emails. One today from 123 Spins (scam). One today purporting to be from from Mr Q. Actually got 11 similar junk emails yesterday! |
|
By:
As an answer to one of the GC questions I advised them to look in their spam folder to see all the unregulated companies laughing at them.
|
|
By:
I really don't see how someone who is genuinely wealthy, and has an interest in horse racing, will not have horses in training because they cannot get a £1k bet on online .....
And if I was that genuinely wealthy I would tell my tax accountant to sort it out and have it fixed asap!! As hulk23 says, take 20k out of the company safe and back your horse on track.... no need to go on line at all. |
|
By:
I do not trust the bookies. And, I'll certainly not give financial info to bookies regardless. The bookies are not qualified or governed by the FCA. The bookies have been found to be unscrupulous and blatantly disregard the betting/gaming terms and conditions of their licence; the regular humongous (sometimes repeated by the same firms) spoke volume.
If necessary I'd rather risk betting in the grey market than parting my financial info to bookies. The bookies have treated punters with disdain for a long while now, and it's time the punters return the "favour". As long as I'm paid out (if I win) I'll accept the bookies' decision to restrict or ban me entirely post the win. Otherwise IBAS again. The bookies and their mouthpieces must not be allowed to win the AC argument, period. It's simple to resolve. A bit of common sense that's all that's needed. But, without the input of bookies. The bookies must not be allowed to run horseracing! |
|
By:
When I passed all bet 365 affordability checks, I then had the responsible gambling team to deal with. They are something else! Strangely when I spoke to them they were only interested in two months I made a nice profit, which I thought was odd.
|
|
By:
impossible
"If necessary I'd rather risk betting in the grey market ... Otherwise IBAS again." Apologies if I am misreading you - but how are you going to take a grey market operator to IBAS? |
|
By:
their not backing them to win maj of time their backing them to lose,on course than means backing every other horse in race other than yours, horse racing is basically going back to what it was pre betfair and internet,the fact owners are up in arms ,packing game in should be a BIG RED FLAG,not because of AC but because of betting horses to lose
|
|
By:
'longbridge'. I meant the high street and online bookies with a UK licence to operate; if I win, and they refuse to pay out I'll go IBAS again to get my legit money. Then the bookie can restrict or ban me. I'll say that to IBAS.
This lot here made a mess of Man City Football Specials 2022/23. Then suspended market for long periods without consultation or giving a reason. They offered me £25 as final compensation without admitting liability, but offer would be rescinded if I went to IBAS. However, they admitted to IBAS their market was "malformed". I got all my stake back. The bookies are bullies, but without the necessary qualification academically, university of life and business sense. The bookies cannot defend fobt in public. And, as AC is intrinsically linked to fobt (this is the bookies deliberately ploy) the bookies are unwilling to send a rep to debate in public. The Racing Post is not fit for purpose. It's also the bookies mouthpiece masquerading as a horseracing paper. |
|
By:
The bookies are hot on the heels of legit gamble. But, turn a blind to big stables esp in Ireland about principal runners from the same stable running inexplicable badly.
If this unscrupulous practice to defraud punters was replicated in the City Of London these big stables would be sanctioned and possibly history by now; Hong Kong and USA to name two have the cahoonas to do something about bent-horseracing. Here and in Ireland the authorities kowtow to their connections. |
|
By:
hulk2315 Aug 23 19:33Joined: 04 May 12
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 ? Will become a pyrrhic victory for them, if they succeed in getting the full strength of ACs - when they ruin racing and gambling, will eventually take their own businesses down with everything else. They should be very careful what they are wishing for here. |
|
By:
If they do ruin our racing industry and all our ability to partake in gambling (as we know it, with freedom), I for one would be campaigning to shut down these filthy organisations called 'bookies' entirely.
If they think they can still sit there, trying to leach money off losers in casino games etc...good luck, that will be next to be banned. Say goodbye to their stocks and shares, in rapid time. |
|
By:
I sincerely hope casino games have a time-out of 5 mins after each spin; horseracing is 30 mins on average. I'd like the bookies to debate on this in public too.
|
|
By:
There is 0 logical argument in favour of casino type games, while banning other (possibly skillful) forms of gambling - so it would logically be the next target to happen.
Casino-bookies must be banned. To be the next slogan and campaign - there's enough (true) sob-stories to start that one next. Either you let people choose (as that great article in RP today says) or you do not. |
|
By:
Affordability checks and the reduction of gambling on horse racing doesn't make sense until you spot the main target. Which is the horse racing industry.
This is what intellectual lefties do, they destroy and take away our freedoms. The same as the fox hunting ban was an an attack on the class of people who hunt. The welfare of foxes wasn't the concern at all. That was used as an excuse, and affordability checks are being used in the same way. |
|
By:
Totally agree with that, be interesting to know if any of the GC have actually ever bet on a horse race or been to a racemeeting.
|
|
By:
£900 per day per person for The Privelege Suite (sold out on St Patrick's Day already) for Cheltenham.
How will that square up with Affordability Checks? |
|
By:
How the fcuk do we see this completely disproportionately AC checks on the one hand but on the other hand we are bombarded with bingo sites, casino sites advertised all over the media including on teatime tele with kids watching.
Also, we find ourselves in this position primarily down to the despicable behaviour of bookies preying on the most vulnerable addicts down the years and yet they, the culprits, after showing that they can't be trusted have been given the instruction to demand highly privileged information from its customers, it's like putting the fox in charge of the hen coop ffs |
|
By:
duffy make your feelings known here ....
https://consult.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/author/summer_2003_consultation_lccp_rts_regpanels/consultation/subpage.2023-07-19.4945029823/ Go through to question 10 and then check the "Remote gambling: financial vulnerability and financial risk" section and don't hold back |
|
By:
Never fear, the BHA is here....
'We'll push the government hard' - BHA pledge to make sure affordability checks do not hurt racing British racing will present a united front, working with bookmakers in a push to make sure affordability checks do not threaten the sport's long-term health, it was spelled out by industry leaders on Wednesday. Intrusive checks, which include punters being asked for sensitive financial information before they have a bet, could lead them to stop gambling or to the black market. Either outcome would have a drastic effect on British racing's finances and this week well-known owners Phil Cunningham and Carl Hinchy expressed their anger at the situation. Like many who bet on racing, they were alarmed by the level of detail potentially required in proposals revealed recently by the Gambling Commission, which has launched a consultation stage on the matter that closes in October. "Work is now underway across the industry to pull together the sport's response to the Gambling Commission's consultation process," Greg Swift, the BHA's director of communications and corporate affairs said on Wednesday. "I think we have a meeting with the BGC [Betting and Gaming Council] this week to discuss our approach on this and clearly we'll work closely with the BGC on this to present a united front to government on the potential and unintended consequences of the actions they may take. "We have been clear that sweeping blanket checks on affordability are unacceptable. Checks that take place need to be proportionate and very acutely targeted to make sure they deliver on the objective of preventing gambling harm. We've spelled that out to DCMS on a number of occasions and we've spelled that out to the Gambling Commission on a number of occasions." Swift, whose arrival at the BHA was hailed last year given his previous experience working for the government, added: "The BHA will hold the pen on the sport's response, but it will be a response that is fed into from all sectors including those who represent the gambling consumer. We will continue to push very hard across government to make sure they fully understand the implications of some of the proposals that are spelled out in the white paper." |
|
By:
It's all just another part of the great neo-Marxist 'levelling-up' reset, which has been underway for decades and has plenty worse than this yet to come.
|
|
By:
clydebank, I did mine a couple weeks back.
|
|
By:
Maybe the UK could adopt a betting system similar to France or Hong Kong until the present bookies have had their collars felt and put in their place. I do not want to see the dominance of bookies on betting significantly more than AC.
BHA, for once understand why AC has come about. AC is sensible and appropriate. It's just twisted (to suit) by the interpretation and disingenuity of bookies that are at fault. Take away the bookies, and limited AC will be workable on sports. But, stringent AC on every casino game. |
|
By:
Why would you want a tote monopoly?
That just ends up being a vehicle for the big whales and their cushy rebates and frucks everyone else. |
|
By:
Let's see how the books would like it, if we must have these checks why not, rather than the books themselves, have a completely independent organisation that is competent in handling highly sensitive information given full access to the books records relating to their customers accounts and can see casino/fobt players and sportsbook players activity alike and are then tasked with deciding who should and shouldn't be checked.
I reckon the % of casino/fobt players that a completely independent company tasked with deciding who needs to be restricted might differ considerably with who the books think needed to be restricted. |
|
By:
Not sure if anybody has mentioned it but Getting a short priced horse is an even more tempting way to beat the affordability checks.
|