What is the 'trigger' for affordability checks

Seems a sledgehammer/nut thing if that is the case clydebank - they can just stake-factor you to penny bets rather more simply, as they have been doing for years, surely?

Digressing somewhat but....

Flutter Entertainment, owner of betting giants including Betfair and Paddy Power, is preparing to list in the US as early as this year. The firm made the announcement as US and UK punters help drive its revenue up 38 per cent for the first half of 2023. Shares dropped over 3.5 per cent when the market opened

Where/when is that from Hayden - shares pretty much flat today?

And it makes sense - if the future growth market is the US (and it seems to be) it would be good business practice to have a US listing.  It has been years since I worked in the City, but I recall there were significant barriers to marketing London-listed shares to US investors.

Ian King prog on Sky earlier , when discussing the paper changeover he mentioned Flutter were planning on the same project this year.

I got mugged late at night months ago and had my wallet containing my debit card I use on here stolen.

When I attempted to cancel the stolen card details and apply the new card details I got the start of over an hour of chat service messages.

I was asked many many intrusive questions that the only answer i could give was its nothing to do with you. I was asked if i had a credit card and when I said I did I was asked what the credit limit was I explained I only use it for online purchases as it gives me much more protection than a debit card. I told the lady i think i owe them less than £20.

I also told the lady i use my local PP shop and have had many mainly football bets on and the stakes are £200-£500 and I have NEVER been asked if I can afford  to stake those sort of sums I did say I was willing to provide name of shop and managers name and she could check.I also told her via the chat service if I wanted to get a season ticket to watch BHA the cost would be in the thousands and I am sure no one would ask me if I could afford it!

I did tell her I lived on state and private pensions but no rent or mortgage to pay I think that I have more disposable income than a guy earning £1,000 a week who has a couple kids mortgage HP on a car etc etc to pay for.

I told the lady that I have had several books on horse racing published and they received decent reviews in the RP and that although I did not expect to win every day I thought I had 'half a clue'.

The 'chat' was going nowhere as she said I had no real income and I could face a monthly deposit limit. I asked to speak to a supervisor as she seemed determine to apply some limit to my account so she checked the number the company had still applied and when I confirmed it did said someone would call me.

A lady called me and said she had read through all the chat messages I asked her who had made these decisions restricting customers as the government had decided nothing at the time she said just doing her job and she applied deposit limit of £100 a month.

I then joined sm******kets and they just let me deposit £500 no questions asked. After a week or so they asked me to provide a photo copy of a passport or driving licence so I provided driv licence which as DOB on it. It started well and I withdrew the original £500 thinking as I was betting with a balance of over £1300 i would avoid any affordability checks.

How wrong I was as after another week they messaged me asking me how much I earned and what type of job I had I answered honestly just stating pensions.

Two days later when I attempted log in I had a message 'check emails' when i did message was account closed and they did not have give a reason and decision was final and the £1309 would be back in my account same day (which it was)
.

U must be very careful what u say when questions start

I've not had that yet maybe because it's the small amount I deposit each time/month. Any intrusive questions I'd close my account, and go grey.

AC was bookies induced. Now, it's bookies controlled. This cannot be right. The bookies cannot be allowed or tasked with deciding how much a punter can afford to deposit; a thief cannot be allowed to decide how much he/she can steal from you. It's wholly iniquitous and against the principle.

Then perhaps you should be asking more appropriate questions as:
Who is the arbitrator of these decisions and how can the govt/GC issue threats that lead to fines without clear distinction?

You can not have it both ways. If you say bookies need to be more appropriate in their defence of the potentially financially vulnerable and the threat of fines if they arnt, then how can you judge them for being judicious?

I’d like to see the actual data of the accounts of those who have had the questions.

It is the ham fisted way the government want to look busy with the handwringers but not anti business to the conservatives which means they have instilled a lot of ambiguity.

Never say pensions.

Why not pensions, freddie?

Kenneth got done by 2 exc for saying pensions

If I was asked I doubt I would give any of my personal details so that would be it but pensions ought to count for plenty I would have thought.

Well sparrow

If the GC are being as transparent as they imply and answer ‘our questions’

Ask exactly what they dislike about wealth and if you can show having capital how can that in any sanity be considered worse than a fraction of it in disposable income?

kenneth Smarkets close winning accounts, so might just be that rather than affordability

Agree with CB29, Smarkets is a red-herring. They aren't a betting exchange - just another on-line book, so they will go to whatever lengths they can to frustrate and obstruct a winning punter or somebody making a withdrawal.

Smarkets shut me down too

£1300 I would avoid any affordability checks. Just because you're using a balance, doesn't mean affordability will not be triggered. Because that's still "money lost" if you lose the lot.

In fact, if you have a large balance and think you're safe from the affordability triggers, think again… Especially if it's a lot of percentage higher than your usual deposit sizes.

That is a self fulfilling prophecy.

If you build a ‘net win’ bank based on deposits then by definition your win to loss ratio will have you in a favourable position.

If you then lost the bank that wouldn’t impact AC, by what I make of their intentions.

If by definition you deposit a large amount to P/L then you ‘net deposit’ is in danger of being restricted.

It comes back to the same thing.

Grow a pair and just tell them to go and get fkn stuffed


Ffs….

Will it have make a difference if you have already in the past set up a monthly limit?

What Sparrow said… From what I know, Set yourself a Monthly Deposit and Loss Limit.(easy to do. My Betfair account/ Responsible Gambling) Is my advice.

Can you imagine a person in a bar how much money you make and how much money in your bank…..zzzzz

P off prk….ffs

Buy a car and the salesman drowning in aftershave asking how much you are worth…..zzzzz ffs

Can’t believe all this p!ss….

Mine was a large figure set many years ago.

Deposit and Loss limits might show the algorithms that in the past you have been responsible for your OWN spending.

@formoftherace

"Grow a pair and just tell them to go and get fkn stuffed"

Isn't that what my late grandmother would call "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?  You get 5 minutes of pleasure telling them where to go, and the rest of your life without a betting account?

@trident

"Just because you're using a balance, doesn't mean affordability will not be triggered. Because that's still "money lost" if you lose the lot."

From what I can see of my "spend limit" (which does nothing - as previously mentioned, I neither deposit nor withdraw) it looks to be the difference between monthly deposits and withdrawals, so unless you also have a loss limit set, you should be able to lose from your accumulated balance without triggering any intervention?

That's what i did sparrow , chucked a bulky figure in 4 betting accounts a few months ago and then set a low deposit limit , just seemed a sensible thing to do as i won't be depositing anymore if ever in any of them.

Best of luck 

I have a large limit hayden and just deposit and withdraw well below that figure.  I will never leave a large amount lying around in my account.

The chilling thing about kennethturrell01's post is that he did actually answer the question - what triggers an affordability check? And the answer turns out to be registering a new card.

A couple of years left for me then, and that's it. Assuming I don't lose my card / see it swallowed by a cash machine / get mugged in the interim.

Has anyone access to the same algorithm used by bookies for AC? Does every bookie use the same one? If not, why not?

Trident 12 Sep 23 17:14 
Deposit and Loss limits might show the algorithms that in the past you have been responsible for your OWN spending.


or that you don't trust yourself.

I've never set a limit.

Historically, a new card would trigger the money laundering checks - they would want to see evidence of the card being linked to the account

Mmm. But kennethtirroll01 got a bit more than a money laundering check. At least by his own account.

I don’t think that’s the whole picture screaming.

I believe you could always just deposit via PayPal, then start withdrawing that way instead.

Would a registering a new paypal account have not have the same effect as registering a new debit card though?

(I have no idea - I'm just looking for answers.)

Don’t know

But personally I’d have been more interested to hear what the net deposit was on the card he was updating
I think that would be more enlightening.

But I would understand if the guy didn’t want to divulge that

duffy 12 Sep 23 17:53 
Trident 12 Sep 23 17:14
Deposit and Loss limits might show the algorithms that in the past you have been responsible for your OWN spending.


or that you don't trust yourself.

I've never set a limit.



The limit I increased all those years ago had already been set by Betfair.  I can't really remember why I upped the limit as I had never got anywhere near achieving the original monthly limit.

Yes. Good point, dusty.

But still. Whatever the net deposit was, it didn't trigger an affordability check until he tried to cancel that card.

If card has not been stolen?
No spend budget?

Just because he was in a chat with Betfair they asked the questions?

Most can't get in a chat with Betfair

Unless twitter

If you want to be seen as proactive regarding affordability and mark winning accounts as closed due to affordability issues are the GC going to check the facts?  Fat chance imo.

Twitter is best they communicate quick….

I hadn't thought of it that way, freddie. If you contact Betfair, they may see themselves as obliged to affordability-check you while they've got you on the line.

Kenneth has been well and truly shaf ted

Depositing and/or losing is what triggers the checks.

If you are winning/never deposit, you are very unlikely to get triggered.

Changing card doesn’t automatically trigger a check. I was actually dreading changing mine, though managed to do so seamlessly. It wasn’t until I lost a few k that I got triggered.

What the amount is that triggers it is unknown? My account was over 5 figures down over 12 months. Though that is something I’ve done lots of times in the past before. Been 5 figures down on the month in previous years and never been triggered. And cause I did quite well last October/November, my 12 month now would actually be in profit, so it’s hard to know. Though I  had a rough summer 2022, and got triggered before that dropped off the 12 month pnl. It’s pretty random to be honest, some people get triggered for a lot less, others for a lot more.

Don’t assume that because your account is in lifetime profit, you won’t be triggered. That counts for nothing. Unless you have never withdrawn. For example, say you are up 6 figures lifetime, and have never withdrawn, so you have a 6 figure balance. You could lose 50k tomorrow and nothing will happen.

However, if you are up 6 figures lifetime, but have withdrawn most of it. If you lost 10k tomorrow, then deposited the day after, you would most likely get triggered.

If you do get triggered, if you have an account manager, or know someone at betfair, you may be ok. If you don’t, and you are stuck with the live chat safer gambling team, you are fckd. Most likely outcome is £100 monthly spend budget limit. If you refuse documents, that will be your limit. If you can’t or won’t prove a regular income, that will likely be your limit. You may get it up to £500 per month if you’re lucky, though it’s likely some restrictions will now apply.

In short, if you win and or avoid depositing, you won’t have any problems. So it’s not really that big a deal if you’re winning, though everyone can see what’s happening with liquidity on here. Banning or restricting people from depositing what they want, when they want, obviously isn’t going to help things in that respect.

That is just betfair too, every other firm interprets the rules differently, they all seem to do their own thing.

It’s an old question; but has any recent PC payer been triggered and what excuse could they have used to explain you are vulnerable AND they take your profit?

I know of a PC payer who is on £100 per month limit. I think it was just cause they deposited, it triggered the check, then cause they couldn’t prove an income they got the limits put on their account. Think a lot of it depends who you get to deal with too. If you get stuck with the live chat bots, you’re in trouble, they just don’t understand.

It’s mainly depositing that triggers the checks. Obviously if you’re losing, you need to deposit. But even if you’re winning, and just topping up, if you make a chunky deposit, you risk triggering the checks. Same with withdrawing winnings, if you keep too low a balance, get caught out by something, then need to deposit, you are risking triggering the checks.

BR, so to your knowledge, what are the monthly deposit limits? £100 and you're paying PC? Surely not.

Would be utterly ridic if you got triggered depositing what they took off you in PC the week before.

I’m very sceptical about them doing that, not that that is what BR is suggesting.
PC is an artificial charge that is implemented outside of the bet simply because you are consistently winning ‘too much’

Be straight on the phone to the CEO

I honestly don’t know what the limits are, and what triggers a check. At present, it varies from person to person. It probably depends on your account and previous activity etc.

All I know is that if you deposit, there is a chance you may be triggered. If you never deposit, you won’t be triggered.

That's the whole issue though, 'previous activity', what does that mean exactly and over what time frame?  Everyone has a bad spell.

It seems the moral is don't withdraw until you've got a mega float,  it's just not worth the risk.

good posts BR...plenty of salient points

What level of PC is this person paying, 20% or higher rate?

You could pay 20% PC on here having made very modest profits.

I deposit and withdraw most days.

Never less than three figures on the deposit side.

Never had an AC yet.

As and when I do, I shall be calling it a day and doing something else.

@tomo - why the constant deposit and withdrawing?  why not just lift profits out at the end of the month?

@jack - you can pay 20% PC on relatively modest profits if you have a very efficient strategy - my best ever made just shy of £2k over 18 months (I bet in small stakes) and I paid well over 50% of that in commission, leaving me well outside the PC net.

Many of those paying 20% PC having made modest profits will be tick traders who never actually have a proper bet. If such an individual then decides to have a few proper bets at Cheltenham for example, it would be quite easy to go on a losing run and blow all the profits in no time resulting in AC.

Smarkets close winning accounts, so might just be that rather than affordability

why would they close winning accounts ?

the nature of an exchange dictates it makes no difference to the exchange operator if someone is winning or losing.  unless they are ball-deep in their own markets.

padi ... are you ball-deep in your own markets ??

It's simply impossible for any exchange other than Betfair to have enough individual users to provide anything other than unworkable and minimal liquidity, and arguably this exchange has reached the level where it can't either.  So they are either reliant on providing the liquidity themselves or outsourcing it.  There is a Swedish arm that I believe features in their accounts and provides a lot of it, but I've also heard there are a couple of other large operations.  If there are they hold a lot of sway since Smarkets is very reliant on them, and maybe if they do exist it became unprofitable for them to provide it forcing Smarkets to close accounts. Or maybe it is largely Smarkets themselves providing it and it was simply forced economics following a large fine from the GC and hot on the heels of COVID.

and arguably this exchange has reached the level where it can't either

indeed

A great pity in my view but if punters prefer to patronise bookmakers then so be it.

tomo1984 12 Sep 23 21:14 
I deposit and withdraw most days.

Never less than three figures on the deposit side.

Never had an AC yet.

As and when I do, I shall be calling it a day and doing something else.

Respect

Its about time Skysports Racing and RacingTV asked the bookmaker reps who come on (telling us their wonderful offers and whats been backed for thousands were asked about 'Affordability Checks'.
Ask them why wealthy people are being targeted for intrusive information. It's time these channels started to show some balls before the game is completley  ******.
I have sent Skysports Racing an e-mail asking them to sort this out. I will be sending RacingTV one as well.  Probably wasting my time.
Bookmakers are very quiet on this subject and its time for some answers.

Bookmakers are very quiet on this subject and its time for some answers. They will say Nothing. Reason- They only answer to shareholders! Thats the case in any business.

And even if you don't get someone to talk from a bookmaker-They are trained reps who are customer facing, and told "Exactly" what to say. It's all a complete load of rubbish. If you want CHANGE It's down to "Legislation" unfortunately. Then them WILL comply.

Sorry, a few words messed up above^ early

I realise it would hard to get any answers, but its worth a try to see what they say.  The Government and Gambling Commission have taken all the flak and bookmakers are getting away with it.
To ask wealthy people to supply information is driven by bookmakers. If they dont want their business, just cancel their accounts like they have done for years.
Time for some pressure on bookmakers.

One thing i'd ask punters on here to consider is to form a trusted syndicate.

I formed one in August 2007 and in all honesty i could write a novel on the benefits over 16 years.

Personally i think it's a necessity in this so called modern gambling world.


Good luck guys 

How does a 'Trusted Syndicate' work. What does it achieve?

shared wealth.

Plenty really clacton.

-Easier to get money on with a countrywide spread syndicate.
-Everyone singing off the same hymn sheet means more time away from the PC.
-Godsend for getting bad e/way acca's on.
-No problem taking holidays and letting the business continue.
-Interactive with real people using technology , exchanging ideas etc.
-Far easier to exploit premium charge.
-I'm an ex-industry worker at a high level so advantageous to hardly ever use my own a/c when feeling the need.

There are more advantages clacton and in all honesty if you take the game seriously it's almost impossible to do it all on your own.

Clacton
If the extent of what you imply were true, that bookies are using the prospect of fines to their own advantage then wouldn’t those imposing the contrived rules for the sake of helping such a minority have a remedy?
It’s so facile for people to engage with the concept of helping those who refused help at the even greater cost of the bookies looking over studious implementing them.

It’s as though the government and the GC are Frank Spencer.
This was always going to be one of many dangers when you attempt to force a square peg through a round hole….unless they really don’t give a 5hit about the sector at all?

Thanks Hayden

Dustybin I dont quite understand what you are saying.
What I am saying is that Bookmakers are the ones who pick which accounts to investigate. Why pick on people who are wealthy and are not the ones all this nonsense is suppose to help.
Nothing complicated, just a simple fact.

Why indeed.
So what safeguard have the GC come up with to make sure it doesn’t happen?

The old allegations were that bookies stopped winners.
Now apparently they are stopping people in hyper-mode under the premise of the imposition of safer gambling implemented by the government/GC.
So shouldn’t they be doing something about that?

It’s been a 5hit show start to finish.
They thought they could help those not wanting help and it turned out they couldn’t, nor stop the wholesale destruction of perfectly reasonable gamblers.

Why not have a better plan?
It’s been what 3 years in the making and still they scratching their arse.

dustybin13 Sep 23 12:31Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 25,167 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
It’s as though the government and the GC are Frank Spencer.

That's the reality - when it comes down to it, both the govt and the GC are like Frank Spencer when it comes to having detailed knowledge of any complex subject matter.

Relative to that, the bookmakers are normally savvy as feck (like Einstein by comparison) and have run rings around them every time.

Surely that gives you some indication to how badly they have behaved - that they have been so impotent this time around.

Has the word arbitration even been mentioned?
I havnt heard it.
The govt/GC have come out with stipulations regarding cold numbers that will have your collar felt, but beyond that look at the language they are using.
They say ultimately it’s with the company to evaluate what is a problem…and if they get it wrong will get fined.

How is that consummate with common sense?

This is why government intervention has always been a bad idea.

It's a consultation!


consultation
/kɒnsəlˈteɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
the action or process of formally consulting or discussing.

So why allow companies to use it as an excuse while they don’t know what they are doing themselves?

That logic of yours just doesn’t add up I’m afraid

As I’ve said previously, it was an attempt to worry the bookies into line with threats, but they had to create something with which to threaten them with.
But arn’t exactly sure what that looks like

As I said, they are trying to look busy to the hand wringers while staying onside with the conservatives, and failing on both counts

I refer you to the last line of my 13:08 post - they have gone massively OTT out of sheer disorganised, terror/panic and (voluntarily) introduced measures even more draconian than those that the commies were proposing (in their wildest dreams)!

But always remember they aren't to blame and they are on your side!

Think you will find ‘my side’ was self responsibility.
Venture away from that path even slightly and you end up in nowhereville-or worse.

But they just had to, whether with a plan or without, and the carnage only seems to grow.

Since the on-line casino/slots operators voluntarily introduced measures even more draconian than the ones being proposed, things appear to have improved (at least a bit). You still think the "bookmakers" have played their hand well?

The people you hate, having been handed all the ammunition in the world - can even now say "told you so".

The WP estimates a reduction of only 14% in the industry as a whole.

Hmmm, 1 in 7 affected eh?
You think that true, does anyone?

As I said, were the arbitration?
Why havnt they thought of it as part of this safety plan?

Where

Have a good day.

Thought you would eventually get tired,surprisingly

Still a little bit of time - for some common sense to prevail imo. Maybe just a question of which side will initiate it.

I don't suppose the injection of common sense (if there is one) will come from anybody with the attitude - feck them, give no quarter.

Don’t know who that’s supposed to apply to.
I’ve filled in everything asked and wrote to MP and filled in the consultations and will continue to ask the questions I ask on here
Because they don’t understand logic and their plan is terrible.
How that equates to saying feck em I don’t know.

You of all people should be asking why no arbitration if you believe bookies are acting as opportunists
The problem with your argument is it’s not at all compelling because the very people who want the result don’t care about collateral damage o innocent gamblers.

That to me is the nature of the anti-gambling clique, rather than one working hard to get the answers right for all.

You never know dusty - somebody that you (and screamingfrombeneath) think is a centrist tw4t, might just step in and save the day.

100 million just hit on a cricket match. And will be lot more.
Are these boys exempt from limits

Oct 8, 2023 -- 2:34PM, freddiewilliams wrote:

100 million just hit on a cricket match. And will be lot more.Are these boys exempt from limits

Was just going to post about that.
Just ridiculous amounts of money matched.

How the fcuk is there an attack on many responsible bettors these days but at the same time you've got 32 red spins being advertised on tea time telly with the whole family watching inviting you to deposit and get free spins.

All this during The Chase sponsored by another Bingo site

Paddy sky and here. If ure done on one are u done on tother 2

145 mill on cricket earlier. One day game