There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 269 comments are related to the topic:
Dear Racing Post readers,
Dear Racing Post readers,
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 269
|
By:
And?
What are you alluding to? |
|
By:
dustybin22 Sep 23 17:49Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 25,207 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
TM So what’s your point? They have done what, set it as low as possible for what reason? I think I've been pretty clear. If you can't work it out, then I have over-estimated you! |
|
By:
TM you can continue to play games of allusion all you like
But if you are too scared to even say it why is it for me to guess? |
|
By:
What was it you said
Tbh TM I’m tired of the whole thing with your assessment so might have missed it You saying they took the lowest figure to cause outrage with punters? |
|
By:
They have deliberately set it at £100 to whip up as much (scared and panic stricken) support as possible. Anyone that has been restricted to £100 deposits will be outraged, anyone that hears about it will be outraged. Basically it's outrageous - but I believe they have done it (short term pain for long term gain) whip up support for their cause.
As I have said repeatedly, no slot/casino (or horses for that matter) addict can stand up and defend their right to be an addict, they need everybody that bets on anything to stand up and be outraged. It's gone horribly wrong imo - but speaking personally as a devious, manipulative bstrd that usually found himself on the wrong side of the morality argument - it's something I would have considered and run past my paymasters. |
|
By:
I honestly can’t say any of that resonates with my logic TM, no.
|
|
By:
So will the big bookmakers such as Hills etc still lay large bets on course ?
|
|
By:
Some companies aren’t even allowing you £100. They just close your account.
It’s not about causing outrage. That’s just another one of your weird bookmakers/racing post conspiracies. It’s about risk assessment , they don’t want larger punters, particularly ones who can’t or won’t provide documents, as they carry a large risk of getting a fine if they lose. There are only so many 6 figure fines you can take before you are put out of business. The outrage from punters is genuine, as none of them want or have called for the checks. And the checks are completely pointless in any case. They do absolutely nothing to help, it’s just the GC seem to think that they are necessary, and that addicts will suddenly stop if they are told they can’t afford it. |
|
By:
dustybin22 Sep 23 18:03Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 25,211 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
I honestly can’t say any of that resonates with my logic TM, no. Fair enough dusty - but it's the only conceivable answer to some of the questions i posed earlier/above (imo). Have a good evening. |
|
By:
The reason for my question is that if a person is limited to say £500 deposits per month can he then simply go on course for a four figur bet?
|
|
By:
They picked the lowest figure to make it look like they are taking it serious.
Like they will ban diesel cars from 2030. Build a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland. It’s just political posturing. Can’t see why they ll deal with this before the election,so it will just get kicked down the road. No votes in it. |
|
By:
The answer as it stands sparrow is that on course will not be affected.
|
|
By:
As I thought cagliari thank you. Pretty difficult for bookmakers to enforce at the courses I would have thought.
|
|
By:
I’m sure the bookmakers don’t want AC checks, as it is an extra cost, more staff needed, and it will cost them some customers. But they can also make them work for them, in the very least they are a tool to stop them getting regulatory fines. Whether or not they also use the data to profit from, or to profile, or for commercial gain, who knows?
The one thing for certain, is that punters do not want the checks. The outrage is genuine. And if the proposed limits being put forward by the GC do come into effect, then the outrage is only going to grow. Especially if single customer view is imposed as planned, and those limits count across the board, not just with one bookmaker. They are just tying to reduce gambling, in the name of gambling harm. All they will succeed in doing is lowering gambling turnover, harm and addicts just get pushed elsewhere. That is why people are outraged and angry, they are having their hobby, and their freedom to bet as and when they want taken away from them, all for no good reason. |
|
By:
"Im sure the bookies don;t want AC checks.........................................................., who knows?
How utterly naive you're? Bookies speak with forked-tongue. AC is bookies induced courtesy of their "crack cocaine" of gambling nog horseracing; every mega fine indicated massive losses over a very short period of time eg hours and days. Horseracing? Bunkum. The repeated and persistent mega fines were no deterrent to them, possibly kudos eg the bigger the fine, the bigger risk taker. As a result AC. But, bookies and their bias mouthpiece the Racing Post are trying to twist AC, and use it against any punter eg recreational regardless. But, the bookies are not mandated by GC to do so on every punter. I'd like GC to call bookies bluff. A big showdown sobeit. Bring it on! |
|
By:
Ah I dunno anymore, impossible123, maybe I am completely naive.
I think I’m gonna just give up gambling and go back to crack. Never been a fan of cocaine, just seem to get it stuck in my sinuses. Just like my gambling, I must be doing it wrong. I’m just gonna stick with crack now I think, at least my crack supplier doesn’t limit me to £100 per month or ask for all my bank statements and wage slips. |
|
By:
More bets from a degenerative addict - that couldn't price up a coin-toss BR
   Football / Bayern Munich II v Illertissen / First Half Goals 2.5 Under 2.5 Goals Lay 321826162298 22-Sep-23 17:45 1.27 40.00 1.27 22-Sep-23 17:56 Football / Bayern Munich II v Illertissen / First Half Goals 2.5 Under 2.5 Goals Lay 321827507977 22-Sep-23 17:54 1.29 60.00 1.29 22-Sep-23 17:54 |
|
By:
Imposs123 is a needy fkr
Can’t stop telling everyone what he wants and he’s just a 2 bit 100 quid a monther who won’t be affected by any state intervention. People can choose to view his posts with a pinch of salt. |
|
By:
Irrespective of whether staking levels are true or false Dusty , that's an extremely harsh assumption and over the top comment.
|
|
By:
Nothing wrong with Dusty's comment as it is based on facts provided by impossible himself, unlike TM who makes sweeping statements without evidence!!!
|
|
By:
Yeah, that’s shown me, TM.
You after timing some winning bets has really put me in my place. |
|
By:
Hayden
Just as Cag stated I was simply referring to his own declarations. Keeps droning on about what he wants out of spite with no ‘skin in the game’ I could have been far harsher. |
|
By:
Yeah - probably give it a day or two before you next suggest that my views are invalid because I don't bet?
Maybe just stick to pretending that I have an irrational hatred of bookmakers and have got it in for them? They're all good guys and they have our collective best interests at heart. |
|
By:
'dustybin', thank-you for your carefully-considered opinion; your opinion is yours only; mine is mine. Simple!
I'd more than a hunch AC was coming. But, never envisaged it could be so intrusive and draconian and expedited by scumbag bookies. I'm grateful of the GC statement that the scumbag bookies have not been mandated to execute their form of AC. Not so long ago (Don Cossack to be more precise) I'd over £2500 running on the horse at prices ranging from 7/1 to 12/1 (possibly 14/1 or 16/1 with tote) post his fall in the King George; I lay off £1200 (some using a credit card) at 7/4 for a green. But, now I do not bother post an entity like ***way asked for id verification on a 9/1 antepost Oaks winner for a mere £20 stake ie £200 payout in total. Only £100 or below per month, if at all. Why bother when bookies wily-nily frustrate a withdrawal of that magnitude? I'd get the same buzz on the Stock Market, not minnow cryptos as they are mainly run by foreign thieves eg Australia. I can leave horseracing tomorrow if I want to; my Flat season is almost over. I do not respect almost every journo on the Racing Post that represent lazy journalism. However, I do respect Ms Hislop and Mr Luck though. |
|
By:
BoosterRooster22 Sep 23 19:14Joined: 17 Feb 01 | Topic/replies: 192 | Blogger: BoosterRooster's blog
You after timing some winning bets has really put me in my place. I think what has actually put you in the place you are in, is that a bookmaker has voluntarily chosen to restrict your deposit limits to a draconian £100 per month. |
|
By:
Fair enough dusty , nobody commented so must be me over sensitive
 |
|
By:
I have to go out now, so you can misquote me, twist my words and tell lies to your heart's content BR.
|
|
By:
why arent they targeting these online casinos which are basically licenced fraud. new casinos popping up each day that basically con people into thinking they can win.
when the people you bet with can control the outcome, what chance you got? lol 'take time to think' my ass |
|
By:
Bully for you i123 for going to the trouble to explain your personal vendetta.
You could always mix it on here if you have the minerals. But ofc that is a sideshow for your greater mentality; one clearly of being a left antagonist. |
|
By:
'dustybin', courtesy is free. However, blatant disingenuity I cannot tolerate from any "profession" or not.
|
|
By:
The only people who give money away to the undeserving are the state.
Everyone else has to earn it. |
|
By:
I'd ensure every fit able-body adult unemployed work for their benefit eg picking-up litter or painting lamp post, if necessary. And, the more children they have, the harder they'd need to work to earn the benefit. Otherwise, lesser benefit. Never ever reward laziness is my motto.
|
|
By:
8k;o
|
|
By:
Impossible ,the problem with making everyone work for their benefits,costs a lot to manage and monitor,so the tax payer is paying more.on top of their benefits.
If you begrudge the cost,then why waste more money on them.or is it more about punishing them for needing help. |
|
By:
Painting public railings and lamp posts, picking up street litter, etc do not take much supervision. Also, keeping active invigorates the mind. I might even get them to wear an orange overall. The main message is "work for your benefit as nothing in life is free".
|
|
By:
My point was that the state is the biggest fk up of them all.
To denounce enterprise on the basis a tiny majority are too daft to make a responsible go of it is to say everyone is worthless and needs controlling. I wasn’t intending to bother with tropes, but the state fails hard on the numbers and that new age un-democratic cancel culture is simply anarchism in all but name. Only the uninitiated don’t understand that. |
|
By:
*tiny minority
Silly speckled hen |
|
By:
Incidentally
I know this is too profound for on here. But I’ve always struggled with the thought humans who wish to die are forced to live, because others want them to. In the case of degenerative gambling argued by some to result in suicide, the reality isn’t the fact they lost everything, the reality is the fact there isn’t an excess with which to replace the losses. That’s a societal error. A person who loses from a gambling ‘addiction’ and gets saved will probably still go on suffering from a ‘cost of living crisis’. But that doesn’t matter apparently. Just kick up a fuss about this small issue instead. |
|
By:
dusty - I think I've made my views pretty clear and they are backed up by the evidence.
I agree to a certain extent with some of your politics and some of your views - The world always has been and always will be natural selection (survival of the fittest). Sadly I just don't think that's relevant to what is happening here and now. Not a fan of analogies (because gambling is quite unique and doesn't have many true comparators imo) - but here goes - We're at a point where the Govt has decreed it will raise taxes. That's done and dusted, the decision has been made. Full stop, period - taxes are going up. The consultation is now solely about what new level they will be set at. The people that disagree with the principle of taxation or don't believe/like it as a concept are no longer relevant. The consultation is no longer about the principles/concept of taxation. It's now about what the new level will be. That is where we are. That is the phase we are at with the white paper. You (and sadly a lot of people that are important to the outcome) are still arguing the case against taxation. The game has moved on. It doesn't matter to me whether you move on to the relevant phase or not (except it would make communicating with you more productive) - but it matters massively to me (and to everybody imo) that the people trying to safeguard the future of betting move into the relevant phase of the consultation. "Just say no" has failed. It's time for them to do their jobs. |
|
By:
In a nut-shell they have (inevitably imo) lost the battle (will there be new regulation or not). They need to stop going over and over the battle they have already lost - and focus on winning the war.
Nobody seems to have a strategy for that - and a lot of people in highly paid jobs should have a strategy for it imo! In their absence, all we are left with is the on-line bookmakers, still appearing to be arguing that there shouldn't have been a war in the first place. |