Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
In recent months the Racing Post has, on a daily basis, provided readers with imbalanced stories about the ongoing financial risk consultation and frequently failed to seek a right of reply from the Commission.
In light of this we penned a letter to the Racing Post’s readers page so we could set out our position on the consultation and clear up misunderstandings about the proposed checks.
The Racing Post has refused to publish the letter despite its content being highly relevant to readers.
Considering this blatant lack of balance in a newspaper we have decided to publish the letter on our website.
Open letter to Racing Post readers
Dear Racing Post readers,
I write to you about our ongoing consultation about proposed financial risk checks.
We understand that there may be some concerns about the Government and the Gambling Commission proposals from consumers who are concerned about potential privacy issues.
However, as a regulator we must help clear up misunderstandings about these proposed checks so that all Racing Post readers can engage with our consultation (opens in new tab) in an informed way.
Firstly, readers could easily assume – based on the volume and nature of the coverage - that under the proposals a good proportion of gambling consumers would have to be handing over payslips or bank statements when they want to place a bet.
This is not true.
It’s estimated that just 3 percent of accounts would undergo financial risk assessments. And by our estimates at most just a tenth of that 3 percent would not have a frictionless check via credit reference agency or open banking data. So our estimate is that at most just 0.3 percent of account holders would ever be asked to directly provide the additional financial information that operators are already requiring of some customers.
This means 99.7 percent of customers would not be asked to directly provide any information.
The financial risk checks consultation is Racing Post readers' chance to engage in the development of policy, and we would invite your views on how the 0.3 percent of account holders could have their financial risk assessed if they are not asked to directly provide the additional financial information.
The vast majority of financial risk assessments - around 90 percent - would be carried out through credit reference agencies and open-source banking via a regulated third-party provider under the proposals. These checks will not give gambling companies access to customers’ full bank account data, and any information operators receive must only ever be used for assessing risks of harm, rather than practices like identifying and restricting winners.
Secondly, little of the commentary specifies that these proposals relate to online gambling only. They would not apply to betting in bookmakers or at the racetrack. High street bookmakers may decide to carry out checks based on social responsibility or anti-money laundering risks but these changes being consulted on apply only to online gambling.
And thirdly, although there is often the assumption that credit checks impact a credit rating and could damage credit scores, these soft credit checks will not. Credit scores will be unaffected and data on a customer’s gambling behaviour will not be shared with the financial sector under these proposals.
There are also other misunderstandings which are set out on our website and information which may be helpful for those interested in the consultation proposals.
The Health Survey for England 2018 (opens in new tab) suggests that the percentage of people who have bet online with a bookmaker in the past year and are experiencing problem gambling is 3.7 percent. 5.2 percent are at moderate risk of gambling harm.1
The Government's White Paper proposed that one way we will tackle this is by implementing financial risk checks. This would introduce a frictionless system which is not currently available and make sure the smallest possible number of customers are unnecessarily inconvenienced by checks at all.
In summary, most customers would not undergo checks under these proposals. The government and the Gambling Commission have also been clear that we would not mandate operators to implement checks at levels such as those proposed in the consultation until we were sure that they can be delivered frictionlessly for the vast majority of customers who would be checked. We would be looking to trial this following the consultation should we decide to proceed.
There remains another four weeks of the consultation and we welcome all responses to ensure we strike the right balance between protecting the freedom of the individual to gamble and protecting those most vulnerable from gambling related harm.
Andrew Rhodes
Gambling Commission CEO
In light of this we penned a letter to the Racing Post’s readers page so we could set out our position on the consultation and clear up misunderstandings about the proposed checks.
The Racing Post has refused to publish the letter despite its content being highly relevant to readers.
Considering this blatant lack of balance in a newspaper we have decided to publish the letter on our website.
Open letter to Racing Post readers
Dear Racing Post readers,
I write to you about our ongoing consultation about proposed financial risk checks.
We understand that there may be some concerns about the Government and the Gambling Commission proposals from consumers who are concerned about potential privacy issues.
However, as a regulator we must help clear up misunderstandings about these proposed checks so that all Racing Post readers can engage with our consultation (opens in new tab) in an informed way.
Firstly, readers could easily assume – based on the volume and nature of the coverage - that under the proposals a good proportion of gambling consumers would have to be handing over payslips or bank statements when they want to place a bet.
This is not true.
It’s estimated that just 3 percent of accounts would undergo financial risk assessments. And by our estimates at most just a tenth of that 3 percent would not have a frictionless check via credit reference agency or open banking data. So our estimate is that at most just 0.3 percent of account holders would ever be asked to directly provide the additional financial information that operators are already requiring of some customers.
This means 99.7 percent of customers would not be asked to directly provide any information.
The financial risk checks consultation is Racing Post readers' chance to engage in the development of policy, and we would invite your views on how the 0.3 percent of account holders could have their financial risk assessed if they are not asked to directly provide the additional financial information.
The vast majority of financial risk assessments - around 90 percent - would be carried out through credit reference agencies and open-source banking via a regulated third-party provider under the proposals. These checks will not give gambling companies access to customers’ full bank account data, and any information operators receive must only ever be used for assessing risks of harm, rather than practices like identifying and restricting winners.
Secondly, little of the commentary specifies that these proposals relate to online gambling only. They would not apply to betting in bookmakers or at the racetrack. High street bookmakers may decide to carry out checks based on social responsibility or anti-money laundering risks but these changes being consulted on apply only to online gambling.
And thirdly, although there is often the assumption that credit checks impact a credit rating and could damage credit scores, these soft credit checks will not. Credit scores will be unaffected and data on a customer’s gambling behaviour will not be shared with the financial sector under these proposals.
There are also other misunderstandings which are set out on our website and information which may be helpful for those interested in the consultation proposals.
The Health Survey for England 2018 (opens in new tab) suggests that the percentage of people who have bet online with a bookmaker in the past year and are experiencing problem gambling is 3.7 percent. 5.2 percent are at moderate risk of gambling harm.1
The Government's White Paper proposed that one way we will tackle this is by implementing financial risk checks. This would introduce a frictionless system which is not currently available and make sure the smallest possible number of customers are unnecessarily inconvenienced by checks at all.
In summary, most customers would not undergo checks under these proposals. The government and the Gambling Commission have also been clear that we would not mandate operators to implement checks at levels such as those proposed in the consultation until we were sure that they can be delivered frictionlessly for the vast majority of customers who would be checked. We would be looking to trial this following the consultation should we decide to proceed.
There remains another four weeks of the consultation and we welcome all responses to ensure we strike the right balance between protecting the freedom of the individual to gamble and protecting those most vulnerable from gambling related harm.
Andrew Rhodes
Gambling Commission CEO
Show More
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.
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.
The answer as it stands sparrow is that on course will not be affected.
As I thought cagliari thank you. Pretty difficult for bookmakers to enforce at the courses I would have thought.
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.
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.
"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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Irrespective of whether staking levels are true or false Dusty , that's an extremely harsh assumption and over the top comment.
Nothing wrong with Dusty's comment as it is based on facts provided by impossible himself, unlike TM who makes sweeping statements without evidence!!!
Yeah, that’s shown me, TM.
You after timing some winning bets has really put me in my place.
You after timing some winning bets has really put me in my place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough dusty , nobody commented so must be me over sensitive 
I have to go out now, so you can misquote me, twist my words and tell lies to your heart's content BR.
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
when the people you bet with can control the outcome, what chance you got? lol
'take time to think' my ass
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.
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.
'dustybin', courtesy is free. However, blatant disingenuity I cannot tolerate from any "profession" or not.
The only people who give money away to the undeserving are the state.
Everyone else has to earn it.
Everyone else has to earn it.
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.
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.
If you begrudge the cost,then why waste more money on them.or is it more about punishing them for needing help.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's me done for the day on here. Have a good one (genuinely!). Cheers.
Tax?
It’s not about tax is it?
It’s about stopping degenerates, and the method of doing that.
If it were simply about tax then fine tax a bit more of the profits, job done.
The premise has been one built on lies.
The lie that this is about helping a minority rather than culling the element of gambling writ large.
But the worst lie has been the ‘addiction’ claim, as though collective guilt must be felt by all without a problem.
If the addiction argument were true then it’s easily fixed; force all content creators to supply a free version of the monetary one alongside it.
For every fobt there must be a free one alongside it, for every slot, a free version alongside it.
If it were simply the activity that were addictive then it’s solved…no more losses no more suicides the thick get to play on a device to their hearts content out of the way.
But it’s not the activity, it’s the notion of easy money.
The thick are in fact feckless and need educating that there are no easy routes.
That is the problem that was never mentioned.
It’s not about tax is it?
It’s about stopping degenerates, and the method of doing that.
If it were simply about tax then fine tax a bit more of the profits, job done.
The premise has been one built on lies.
The lie that this is about helping a minority rather than culling the element of gambling writ large.
But the worst lie has been the ‘addiction’ claim, as though collective guilt must be felt by all without a problem.
If the addiction argument were true then it’s easily fixed; force all content creators to supply a free version of the monetary one alongside it.
For every fobt there must be a free one alongside it, for every slot, a free version alongside it.
If it were simply the activity that were addictive then it’s solved…no more losses no more suicides the thick get to play on a device to their hearts content out of the way.
But it’s not the activity, it’s the notion of easy money.
The thick are in fact feckless and need educating that there are no easy routes.
That is the problem that was never mentioned.
The "tax" was just an analogy (probably a bad one!) - you clearly aren't going to move on to the reality of what is happening in the here and now - you still want to argue about a (philosophical/ideological) battle that has already been lost.
I just hope the people that could possibly still save the day aren't stuck there too.
I just hope the people that could possibly still save the day aren't stuck there too.
I have done all the things I’m asked to do, that as a supposedly free society I have at my disposal to register my thoughts-what else do you want me to do?
I’m not going to ‘fall in’ with bs just because there are people who believe it.
The whole thing is illogical and the workings pretty stupid people, I’m not just going to start agreeing with it am I?
And what was wrong with my free remedy?
If it’s not about feckless people but victims then it solves all problems doesn’t it?
Maybe an MP will make this clear in Parliament.
I’m not going to ‘fall in’ with bs just because there are people who believe it.
The whole thing is illogical and the workings pretty stupid people, I’m not just going to start agreeing with it am I?
And what was wrong with my free remedy?
If it’s not about feckless people but victims then it solves all problems doesn’t it?
Maybe an MP will make this clear in Parliament.
The Management 23 Sep 23 10:28
That's me done for the day on here. Have a good one (genuinely!). Cheers
Genuinely! Ffs
That's me done for the day on here. Have a good one (genuinely!). Cheers
Genuinely! Ffs
I think providing a free version (and making it easily accessible) to children is actually one of the issues!
Certainly giving "free spins" to adult on-line customers and encouraging adult shop customers to take part in "free competitions" are also seen by some as "grooming" - so I think free versions are seen as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution!
I'm gonna get on now. GL.
Certainly giving "free spins" to adult on-line customers and encouraging adult shop customers to take part in "free competitions" are also seen by some as "grooming" - so I think free versions are seen as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution!
I'm gonna get on now. GL.
Nobody ever said you had the monopoly on verbal diarrhea f4rty (ffs).
Your reality is completely different from the actual reality, TM.
You are still on some sort of crusade against bookmakers and casino slot providers and the racing post, and whoever else you think is involved in the conspiracy.
You are completely missing the point.
The whole idea is to stop addiction and gambling harm. The measures being bought in do nothing to solve that. They just reduce gambling, stop non problem gamblers from betting, and cause a load of collateral damage in the process.
As dustybin says, if it was just a case of people being addicted to the evil machines, they could just play on free versions, play the games for pretend money, and no harm will ever be done.
But that’s not the reality. The reality is people play them to win money, people think it’s easy money, or even if they don’t, they just want to take their chances anyway.
You could stick an FOBT in the middle of a field, and somebody will still turn up and start playing it. You’re not going to stop that, how ever much you punish the casino or slot providers. People want to play, and if you stop them doing so in the regulated market, then they will just go and play in the unregulated. There are literally thousands of black market options for casino and slots.
All you can do is educate, explain the risks, then after that, if people still want to gamble, on slots, dogs, horses, under 21 Estonian women’s football, or whatever, then that’s up to them.
You are still on some sort of crusade against bookmakers and casino slot providers and the racing post, and whoever else you think is involved in the conspiracy.
You are completely missing the point.
The whole idea is to stop addiction and gambling harm. The measures being bought in do nothing to solve that. They just reduce gambling, stop non problem gamblers from betting, and cause a load of collateral damage in the process.
As dustybin says, if it was just a case of people being addicted to the evil machines, they could just play on free versions, play the games for pretend money, and no harm will ever be done.
But that’s not the reality. The reality is people play them to win money, people think it’s easy money, or even if they don’t, they just want to take their chances anyway.
You could stick an FOBT in the middle of a field, and somebody will still turn up and start playing it. You’re not going to stop that, how ever much you punish the casino or slot providers. People want to play, and if you stop them doing so in the regulated market, then they will just go and play in the unregulated. There are literally thousands of black market options for casino and slots.
All you can do is educate, explain the risks, then after that, if people still want to gamble, on slots, dogs, horses, under 21 Estonian women’s football, or whatever, then that’s up to them.
You just state the obvious TM a load of boring pee ffs
BoosterRooster23 Sep 23 11:16Joined: 17 Feb 01 | Topic/replies: 193 | Blogger: BoosterRooster's blog
The whole idea is to stop addiction and gambling harm. The measures being bought in do nothing to solve that.
I pretty much agree with that BR - but I believe it is you that are completely missing the point, as is evidenced by where we are at this point in time (i.e. completely fecked!).
Your argument is that addicts will be addicts - that's a valid argument, those that are snared are beyond help - in many cases that is sadly spot on. But does it mean you don't try to help them at all and/or allow them to be preyed upon because of their weakness?. Does it also mean that you don't try to stem the flow of new addicts? - just say, what will be will be?
There's an argument for all of the above. But if that is your stance - good luck in winning that debate with the "anti-gambling mob! - and more importantly, good luck in winning that debate with the people that make the laws!
The whole idea is to stop addiction and gambling harm. The measures being bought in do nothing to solve that.
I pretty much agree with that BR - but I believe it is you that are completely missing the point, as is evidenced by where we are at this point in time (i.e. completely fecked!).
Your argument is that addicts will be addicts - that's a valid argument, those that are snared are beyond help - in many cases that is sadly spot on. But does it mean you don't try to help them at all and/or allow them to be preyed upon because of their weakness?. Does it also mean that you don't try to stem the flow of new addicts? - just say, what will be will be?
There's an argument for all of the above. But if that is your stance - good luck in winning that debate with the "anti-gambling mob! - and more importantly, good luck in winning that debate with the people that make the laws!
dustybin23 Sep 23 11:25Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 25,221 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
It’s never over.
Totally agree - there is still time and I'm ever hopeful that common sense might prevail eventually.
It’s never over.
Totally agree - there is still time and I'm ever hopeful that common sense might prevail eventually.
The greed of the betting industry is to blame for all this and the RP has sided with them to the detriment of punters and horse racing as well. Another BINGO!
I said it right at the beginning- that these ‘addicts’ were let down by their poor grasp of logic.
A reasonably well informed person may have the odd go on these games, or have the odd losing flutter, but to blow your fkin rent/food money week in week out takes a level of stupidity that can only be laid at the door of the education department.
A reasonably well informed person may have the odd go on these games, or have the odd losing flutter, but to blow your fkin rent/food money week in week out takes a level of stupidity that can only be laid at the door of the education department.
formoftheace23 Sep 23 11:19Joined: 17 Apr 12 | Topic/replies: 10,044 | Blogger: formoftheace's blog
You just state the obvious TM
Thanks for that F4arty - it's true and possibly the first thing you have ever said that I agree with ffs.
You just state the obvious TM
Thanks for that F4arty - it's true and possibly the first thing you have ever said that I agree with ffs.
Not to labour the point, but what exactly IS the remedy to fix these stupid enough to fall foul of these issues?
As BR keeps correctly pointing out, everything suggested simply stops people use the regulated facilities whether they do have a problem or not.
What is the actual fixing part?
As BR keeps correctly pointing out, everything suggested simply stops people use the regulated facilities whether they do have a problem or not.
What is the actual fixing part?
TM, you keep saying you agree, then you choose to argue against me anyway.
Yes addicts will be addicts. And I’m not saying they shouldn’t be helped. The only way you can help, is educate, raise awareness, and provide help and services when they need it. I am in favour of all of that.
Restricting peoples betting accounts and asking for bank statements doesn’t help, it just pushes the problem elsewhere.
You keep using words like prey and snared. You are missing the point that not all people who play these games are victims. Go on the casinomeister forum and start spreading your views on there and see what response you get.
People play these games because they want to. Not because they are having them pushed upon them. Same as drink, same as any addiction. People start off because they want to, some, not all, in fact very few, end up addicted and ruining their lives.
You seem to completely over look two facts. 1) there is a demand for slots, FOBT , online roulette, just as there is a demand for football bet builders, lucky 15s and Estonian football. If consumers demand it, someone will supply it.
2) the measures being suggested do nothing to help, if you stop people from gambling against their wishes, they will just go elsewhere. You seem to think that the crypto casinos etc that people will end up in aren’t going to attract addicts and rinse them even worst than the regulated market does. The regulated market is not allowed to send free spins and ‘prey’ upon losers any more. The unregulated market will.
Education, awareness, and help for those who need/ask for it is the only way.
You haven’t offered a single solution.
Yes addicts will be addicts. And I’m not saying they shouldn’t be helped. The only way you can help, is educate, raise awareness, and provide help and services when they need it. I am in favour of all of that.
Restricting peoples betting accounts and asking for bank statements doesn’t help, it just pushes the problem elsewhere.
You keep using words like prey and snared. You are missing the point that not all people who play these games are victims. Go on the casinomeister forum and start spreading your views on there and see what response you get.
People play these games because they want to. Not because they are having them pushed upon them. Same as drink, same as any addiction. People start off because they want to, some, not all, in fact very few, end up addicted and ruining their lives.
You seem to completely over look two facts. 1) there is a demand for slots, FOBT , online roulette, just as there is a demand for football bet builders, lucky 15s and Estonian football. If consumers demand it, someone will supply it.
2) the measures being suggested do nothing to help, if you stop people from gambling against their wishes, they will just go elsewhere. You seem to think that the crypto casinos etc that people will end up in aren’t going to attract addicts and rinse them even worst than the regulated market does. The regulated market is not allowed to send free spins and ‘prey’ upon losers any more. The unregulated market will.
Education, awareness, and help for those who need/ask for it is the only way.
You haven’t offered a single solution.
TM also linked my suggestion of having free to play versions accessible at the point monetary ones with grooming ffs.
It has nowt to do with grooming, the games/facilities would still only be available to over 18s as is the case for their gambling alternatives.
It has nowt to do with grooming, the games/facilities would still only be available to over 18s as is the case for their gambling alternatives.
You can't "fix" it dusty - because you and BR are half right - there will always be addicts. In the absence of an absolute "fix" you can either choose to try and make it a bit better for the future or you can choose to do nothing.
I'd suggest that if you want to make life a bit better (or more difficult) specifically for addicts, the very first thing you would try to do, is to identify them. I've met plenty in my time and can identify one blindfolded from 100 meters in the dark. It's not a monetary amount or income related - it's behavioural. The on-line bookmakers can also smell one from 100 metres with a blindfold!
crude example - depositing £1000 one morning doesn't indicate an addict (imo) - depositing 10 x £100 in one day might (coupled with other behaviour) be an indicative sign.
I really can't be 4rsed today - particularly with you and BR - you don't even accept that addicts exist - you believe they are just lazy, ignorant or feckless people. You can't solve a problem that you don't beleive exists, so discussing the potential solutions with such people is utterly pointless.
Howver failing to discuss potential solutions with people that do believe it's a problem - might be fatal!
I'd suggest that if you want to make life a bit better (or more difficult) specifically for addicts, the very first thing you would try to do, is to identify them. I've met plenty in my time and can identify one blindfolded from 100 meters in the dark. It's not a monetary amount or income related - it's behavioural. The on-line bookmakers can also smell one from 100 metres with a blindfold!
crude example - depositing £1000 one morning doesn't indicate an addict (imo) - depositing 10 x £100 in one day might (coupled with other behaviour) be an indicative sign.
I really can't be 4rsed today - particularly with you and BR - you don't even accept that addicts exist - you believe they are just lazy, ignorant or feckless people. You can't solve a problem that you don't beleive exists, so discussing the potential solutions with such people is utterly pointless.
Howver failing to discuss potential solutions with people that do believe it's a problem - might be fatal!
Good old Fred - right on cue - literally this second has just offered me some free spins!
It must have slipped his mind that I closed my account with him about 7 years ago when I tried to make a withdrawal and in order to get him to process I had to threaten to take him to court!
It must have slipped his mind that I closed my account with him about 7 years ago when I tried to make a withdrawal and in order to get him to process I had to threaten to take him to court!
Of course I accept addicts exist, I’ve never said anything to the contrary.
I only started engaging with you because you were making out that bookmakers should be identifying addicts in advance and closing their accounts. I pointed out that your logic is deeply flawed, the algorithms throw out way too many false positives, and too many non addicts get their accounts closed as a result. That is what is happening right now with all the restrictions and account closures.
If an Individual says they are not an addict, then that should be that. Having a bookmaker, or somebody like you tell them they are is ridiculous.
You still haven’t offered a single solution. And when pressed for one, you say you can’t be arsed with this and disappear.
I only started engaging with you because you were making out that bookmakers should be identifying addicts in advance and closing their accounts. I pointed out that your logic is deeply flawed, the algorithms throw out way too many false positives, and too many non addicts get their accounts closed as a result. That is what is happening right now with all the restrictions and account closures.
If an Individual says they are not an addict, then that should be that. Having a bookmaker, or somebody like you tell them they are is ridiculous.
You still haven’t offered a single solution. And when pressed for one, you say you can’t be arsed with this and disappear.
BoosterRooster23 Sep 23 12:10Joined: 17 Feb 01 | Topic/replies: 195 | Blogger: BoosterRooster's blog
You still haven’t offered a single solution. And when pressed for one, you say you can’t be arsed with this and disappear.
Yes, I don't answer to you and (sadly) it's not my job to find a workable solution.
Unfortunately for you (and for all of us) the people who's job it is to find a workable solution also appear not to be arsed and have disappeared too. Or more realistically, they are still arguing about a battle they already lost! GL.
You still haven’t offered a single solution. And when pressed for one, you say you can’t be arsed with this and disappear.
Yes, I don't answer to you and (sadly) it's not my job to find a workable solution.
Unfortunately for you (and for all of us) the people who's job it is to find a workable solution also appear not to be arsed and have disappeared too. Or more realistically, they are still arguing about a battle they already lost! GL.
It was me who had the problem with the use of ‘addiction’
It was wrongly used for the purpose of the argument.
Those using it say it’s the activity of pressing flashing buttons and noises etc that act as a lure.
When my example of offering free versions prove it isn’t the game side it’s the desire to win money.
Whatever the problem a reasonable education solves it.
It was wrongly used for the purpose of the argument.
Those using it say it’s the activity of pressing flashing buttons and noises etc that act as a lure.
When my example of offering free versions prove it isn’t the game side it’s the desire to win money.
Whatever the problem a reasonable education solves it.
It's chemical and biologic dusty (gambling addiction) - google it if you want to truly understand it. You won't because you don't. It's a science and people earn very good money applying that science to the design of products that will get people hooked.
I think seeing " The Anorak " having fall foul of these Restrictions tells you ALL you need to know about the motives behind them, are they saying he looked like he needed help / vulnerable etc ??
Maybe the khoont who made the decision should be forced to read one of his books.!
Maybe the khoont who made the decision should be forced to read one of his books.!
You don’t answer to me, because you have no answers. And therefore it’s a good job it’s not your job to solve this problem. As all you can do is bang on about free spins, prey, predators, evil bookmakers, racing post being owned by casino pay masters and the rest of the nonsense.
Otherwise, you have absolutely nothing to offer.
The people whose job it is to solve the problem, is the government and the gambling commission. Unfortunately, they are being heavily led by anti gambling groups and campaigners, who hold very similar views to yourself, and that is why we are in this mess.
Otherwise, you have absolutely nothing to offer.
The people whose job it is to solve the problem, is the government and the gambling commission. Unfortunately, they are being heavily led by anti gambling groups and campaigners, who hold very similar views to yourself, and that is why we are in this mess.
Dusty if you are truly interested in addiction - google the International Gaming Research Unit or even just google Nottingham Trent University. You won't like it and probably won't agree with any of it - but it might help you see things in a less one dimensional way, as regards gambling addiction.
Spot on glasgow, if someone such as Anorak can get restricted then the whole policy is at the very least, seriously flawed
TM
I don’t know how to say this anymore straight forwardly, but whatever the activity that is being done (be it playing a slot/fobt/making a ‘bet’ on a match, if there were versions exactly the same but without monetary risk/reward available then if that doesn’t solve the problem it’s because people are addicted to the feckless act of winning money.
I don’t know how to say this anymore straight forwardly, but whatever the activity that is being done (be it playing a slot/fobt/making a ‘bet’ on a match, if there were versions exactly the same but without monetary risk/reward available then if that doesn’t solve the problem it’s because people are addicted to the feckless act of winning money.
RBYou just twist everything because your logic is flawed, so a logical/rational discussion is not possible with you.
Your would have people believe I am basically Carolyn Harris
- just because I have a different approach to life from you. That couldn't possibly be further from the truth, so it's pointless. I truly hope you get your account(s) back - but it won't be happening via the arguments you are putting forward.
sparrow 23 Sep 23 12:30
Spot on glasgow, if someone such as Anorak can get restricted then the whole policy is at the very least, seriously flawed
Obviously had a reason to pull him,who knows what goes on behind the keyboard with certain accounts….
Spot on glasgow, if someone such as Anorak can get restricted then the whole policy is at the very least, seriously flawed
Obviously had a reason to pull him,who knows what goes on behind the keyboard with certain accounts….
sparrow23 Sep 23 12:30Joined: 20 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 51,582 | Blogger: sparrow's blog
Spot on glasgow, if someone such as Anorak can get restricted then the whole policy is at the very least, seriously flawed
Spot on - you'd have to wonder why any on-line bookmaker (including BF) would want to impose £100 deposit limit on any account - whilst simultaneously arguing that to do so would be intrusive and draconian.
Spot on glasgow, if someone such as Anorak can get restricted then the whole policy is at the very least, seriously flawed
Spot on - you'd have to wonder why any on-line bookmaker (including BF) would want to impose £100 deposit limit on any account - whilst simultaneously arguing that to do so would be intrusive and draconian.
Christ almighty
BR has covered that answer- because of the threat of looming punishments.
Having to comply isn’t the same as agreeing with it.
BR has covered that answer- because of the threat of looming punishments.
Having to comply isn’t the same as agreeing with it.
Clarity would ofc be provided had the GC thought of making arbitration available.
The word is "consultation" dusty, not arbitration. It is available (right now!).
I haven’t twisted anything,TM. And there are no flaws in my logic or arguments.
You don’t even have an argument, other than blaming bookmakers, free spins and slots. That’s not an argument, that’s just your opinion.
You still refuse to address the actual problem and offer up a solution. Mainly, because you don’t have one.
I’ve no idea if I will get my accounts back, you seem to take a great deal of pleasure in the fact that I have had them closed. In the current climate, I very much doubt I will, I imagine things will continue to get far worst for myself and many other gamblers who don’t consider themselves addicts or problem gamblers. Many more gamblers are probably going to get stopped from betting as they want to.
All because of “something needs to be done”.
You don’t even have an argument, other than blaming bookmakers, free spins and slots. That’s not an argument, that’s just your opinion.
You still refuse to address the actual problem and offer up a solution. Mainly, because you don’t have one.
I’ve no idea if I will get my accounts back, you seem to take a great deal of pleasure in the fact that I have had them closed. In the current climate, I very much doubt I will, I imagine things will continue to get far worst for myself and many other gamblers who don’t consider themselves addicts or problem gamblers. Many more gamblers are probably going to get stopped from betting as they want to.
All because of “something needs to be done”.
Bookmakers are (sadly) the only people not involved - as BR points out, that just leaves the "anti's" and the govt to find a solution. And that doesn't appear to be going well imo.
The bookmakers are still stuck in the same time warp as you - "just say no".
The bookmakers are still stuck in the same time warp as you - "just say no".
Rhodes says "We know that problem gambling rates vary by activity from 0.9 percent of those playing the National Lottery, to 2.8 percent of those betting on horse racing (not online) and 8.5 percent of those who participate in online gambling on slots, casino or bingo
"This is why the Government’s White Paper is particularly focussed on these higher risk areas."
So why are AC's not focussing on the area Rhodes clearly knows creates more problem gambling ie "online gambling on slots, casino or bingo".
Can't be too many problem gambling on horses online, is Rhodes aware anyone with half a fkng clue are limited to buttons or closed down within half a dozen bets.
"This is why the Government’s White Paper is particularly focussed on these higher risk areas."
So why are AC's not focussing on the area Rhodes clearly knows creates more problem gambling ie "online gambling on slots, casino or bingo".
Can't be too many problem gambling on horses online, is Rhodes aware anyone with half a fkng clue are limited to buttons or closed down within half a dozen bets.
I am gutted for you BR - seven goals in the first U21 game this morning and just five in the first-half of the other one. Degenerate addicts (like me) betting in obscure markets will be in clover.
More seriously though, I'm not "taking pleasure" in your situation, I wouldn't wish it on anybody. The fact that BF have chosen to put you in that position and you want to blame everybody else (except for them), I do find that mildly amusing.
More seriously though, I'm not "taking pleasure" in your situation, I wouldn't wish it on anybody. The fact that BF have chosen to put you in that position and you want to blame everybody else (except for them), I do find that mildly amusing.
likelihood of getting limited or closed -
Horses - 99.7%
slots, casino or bingo - 0.0%
Horses - 99.7%
slots, casino or bingo - 0.0%
So what should the bookmakers be doing, TM ?
What is the solution?
I don’t blame betfair. I blame the gambling commission, the government, and the anti gambling campaigners and the media who have supported them. I’ve told you that before. You are aware of the recent court case involving betfair? People like you are saying they should be using their algorithms to intervene. Now they are intervening.
This is what happens if you call for bookmakers to identify addicts, people who don’t want their accounts closing, get closed. Addicts then just find somewhere else to gamble. It’s a terrible solution. But this is what is being called for.
What is the solution?
I don’t blame betfair. I blame the gambling commission, the government, and the anti gambling campaigners and the media who have supported them. I’ve told you that before. You are aware of the recent court case involving betfair? People like you are saying they should be using their algorithms to intervene. Now they are intervening.
This is what happens if you call for bookmakers to identify addicts, people who don’t want their accounts closing, get closed. Addicts then just find somewhere else to gamble. It’s a terrible solution. But this is what is being called for.
Only three reasons people become addicted to gambling in any form 1.They win early on and think it is easy, subsequently find the opposite and start chasing losses. 2.Lose early on and chase losses as per 1. 3. Enjoy the thrill but end up as per 1 & 2.
Most addicts of gambling are chasing losses and many have told the story that they kept going in the hunt for the big win that would clear their debts/ losses and they could give up. A vicious cycle that is never ending but nevertheless self inflicted, blaming the bookies the standard get out clause because they have no self control.
So in effect a tiny minority are causing grief for the vast majority and a hugely important industry i.e the racing and bloodstock industry, the GC are doing the job for animal rights lunatics et al. Complacency and self interest as on here will achieve nothing as will doing nothing so writing reams of self opinion is as much use as tits on a bull TM et al.
Most addicts of gambling are chasing losses and many have told the story that they kept going in the hunt for the big win that would clear their debts/ losses and they could give up. A vicious cycle that is never ending but nevertheless self inflicted, blaming the bookies the standard get out clause because they have no self control.
So in effect a tiny minority are causing grief for the vast majority and a hugely important industry i.e the racing and bloodstock industry, the GC are doing the job for animal rights lunatics et al. Complacency and self interest as on here will achieve nothing as will doing nothing so writing reams of self opinion is as much use as tits on a bull TM et al.
soon be asking someone to prove they can afford a packet of paracetamol b'cos others have a 2 grand a week cocaine addiction.
A lot of that is not far wrong Cag - but I disagree with you category 3 definition.
The old style fruit machine addict (we all must have known one) - it was 5 pence per spin and the jackpot was £1. Once he is £10 down - which category does he fall into iyo? Why is he still playing? He didn't win early (so he's not category one). He's not category two because he can't win back his losses (it's mathematically impossible). He's just addicted to the feeling that playing that machines gives him - it's chemical and biological. In some (extreme cases) he can even get that chemical buzz from watching somebody else play the machine. That is category 3.
The old style fruit machine addict (we all must have known one) - it was 5 pence per spin and the jackpot was £1. Once he is £10 down - which category does he fall into iyo? Why is he still playing? He didn't win early (so he's not category one). He's not category two because he can't win back his losses (it's mathematically impossible). He's just addicted to the feeling that playing that machines gives him - it's chemical and biological. In some (extreme cases) he can even get that chemical buzz from watching somebody else play the machine. That is category 3.
and there are more than 3 categories btw.
I really do have to go - so you can now accuse me of running scared of your intellectual might!
I really do have to go - so you can now accuse me of running scared of your intellectual might!
Gambling by skill(e.g. horse racing but I will use the word 'skill' lightly) should be separated from all gambling by chance, they should be separately licensed. Ban all freebies and all advertising for games of chance should be forced to prominently display(half the page) average returns per £100 staked etc. If people are still too stupid to play them then there's no helping them.
Swify - I respect your views, enjoy your posts (very much like your sense of humour).
But the fact that a fella with a First Class Degree in mathematical probability from Oxford can still get addicted to playing roulette - imo, that debunks the theory that stupidity plays a large part in propensity to become addicted to gambling.
But the fact that a fella with a First Class Degree in mathematical probability from Oxford can still get addicted to playing roulette - imo, that debunks the theory that stupidity plays a large part in propensity to become addicted to gambling.
Gambling by skill should be separated from all gambling by chance.
100%
lumping everything together is just ridiculous. FOBT's are designed to get the person playing them addicted ffs.
then they turn round and say hang on you need to prove you can afford a tenner on a horse b'cos too many are getting addicted to FOBT's
100%
lumping everything together is just ridiculous. FOBT's are designed to get the person playing them addicted ffs.
then they turn round and say hang on you need to prove you can afford a tenner on a horse b'cos too many are getting addicted to FOBT's
Likewise the fella that works 60 hours per week to sponk his entire wages on a Saturday morning at Hackney dogs - debunks the theory that laziness plays a large part in the propensity to become addicted to gambling.
also debunks the theory that AC's are to protect problem gamblers when they can simply wander along to their nearest racetrack / casino / newsagent (scratchcards) / amusement arcade and easily find an alternative way to feed their addiction
" Gambling by skill should be separated from all gambling by chance "
Don't start a thread debating that differential or it'll go on for 10 years.
One of the most subjective terms i've ever seen posted on the forum.
Good luck today all
Don't start a thread debating that differential or it'll go on for 10 years.
One of the most subjective terms i've ever seen posted on the forum.
Good luck today all
That’s called an anomaly
The vast majority who play the gambling games have little grasp of logic nor probability.
They used to call it a lack of savvy, or gumption or common sense.
Referring to a lack of it as stupid is good enough since it cures most of the stupid choices made.
The vast majority who play the gambling games have little grasp of logic nor probability.
They used to call it a lack of savvy, or gumption or common sense.
Referring to a lack of it as stupid is good enough since it cures most of the stupid choices made.
TM, I don't disagree some people are wired for addiction, I've no idea what the solution is, unfortunately it looks like no one else does either.
you can't afford £10 on a horse. ok, i'm off down the boozer to stick £300 in the fruit machine.
protected ?
protected ?
Further proof it is infact stupidity is the fact there are advice for help with the ‘affliction’.
Yet they ignore it and continually do their brains in
Whether they get a chemical kick out the prospect of playing for money or not, the outcome is obvious to them by the pain it creates, if they still don’t seek help….then that’s a good enough factor to call them stupid imo.
Yet they ignore it and continually do their brains in
Whether they get a chemical kick out the prospect of playing for money or not, the outcome is obvious to them by the pain it creates, if they still don’t seek help….then that’s a good enough factor to call them stupid imo.
swiftynifty23 Sep 23 13:34Joined: 16 Jan 07 | Topic/replies: 8,266 | Blogger: swiftynifty's blog
TM, I don't disagree some people are wired for addiction, I've no idea what the solution is, unfortunately it looks like no one else does either.
Here endeth the thread. Totally agree, the people we are all relying on to find a workable solution either have no idea wtf they are doing or they are bookmakers, that know perfectly well what they are doing but don't want to find a solution!
TM, I don't disagree some people are wired for addiction, I've no idea what the solution is, unfortunately it looks like no one else does either.
Here endeth the thread. Totally agree, the people we are all relying on to find a workable solution either have no idea wtf they are doing or they are bookmakers, that know perfectly well what they are doing but don't want to find a solution!
Why don’t you help them out then, the management.
What is the solution?
What is the solution?
They (the bookmakers) don't like the solution and therefore won't put forward the solution (as you well know) - it involves bookmakers actually being bookmakers. Sadly, as you keep pointing out - that just leaves the anti-mob to come up with and impose their completely unworkable alternative.
Pretty much everybody on this thread has already posted the most workable solution. It's not perfect, the solutions to difficult problems rarely. Life is nowhere near as clear cut (black and white, left or right) as you and dusty would like us to believe - but it's a feck sight more workable than anything currently being proposed.
Pretty much everybody on this thread has already posted the most workable solution. It's not perfect, the solutions to difficult problems rarely. Life is nowhere near as clear cut (black and white, left or right) as you and dusty would like us to believe - but it's a feck sight more workable than anything currently being proposed.
There’s a saying; the medicine is worse than the cure.
All they are doing is transferring a small problem into a much larger one that’s felt well beyond those with the problem…..and still not fixing those with a problem.
All they are doing is transferring a small problem into a much larger one that’s felt well beyond those with the problem…..and still not fixing those with a problem.
Correct dusty - left to their own devices as they have been up until now, to find a workable solution, the anti-mob, the GC and the govt are basically proposing a solution to shoot everybody dead, in order to stop them catching the disease.
If only there was another party (that understood the true reality) and was involved in the consultation process.
If only there was another party (that understood the true reality) and was involved in the consultation process.
Still not offering any solutions of your own, TM.
Just more of your anti bookmaker rhetoric.
Just more of your anti bookmaker rhetoric.
Yes, the GC would have suggested it had they actually wanted that.
*it still wouldn’t have solved the problem even then since the problem gambler would still go elsewhere
Short of cutting their hands off or marching them into rehab what COULD they do?
*it still wouldn’t have solved the problem even then since the problem gambler would still go elsewhere
Short of cutting their hands off or marching them into rehab what COULD they do?
Yeah BR - I'm off to lunch with Carolyn Harris and then I'm going to confiscate some guide-dog puppies from the blind children. Have a good life.
There's none so blind, as those that cannot see.
The bookies are the cause of AC; the bookies are now the executor of AC; the executor is also the judge and jury of AC.
The murderer is the catalyst of capital punishment; the murderer is now also the judge and jury of capital punishment; the murderer is now dishing out capital punishment.
Come to the real world of horseracing, and bookies' dominance. This scenario resembles that of a dysfunctional family with a penchant for self-destruction.
The murderer is the catalyst of capital punishment; the murderer is now also the judge and jury of capital punishment; the murderer is now dishing out capital punishment.
Come to the real world of horseracing, and bookies' dominance. This scenario resembles that of a dysfunctional family with a penchant for self-destruction.
If The Racing Post makes a tweet you can respond to it. If the Gambling Commission makes you can't.
The 3% and 0.3% mentioned is complete garbage, as they should, and almost certainly do, well know.
The 3% and 0.3% mentioned is complete garbage, as they should, and almost certainly do, well know.
I think that's very true CB29 - BUT I also think it's a tricky one for the on-line bookmakers to argue.
Obviously those percentage are indeed utter garbage - totally skewed by all the dormant and practically dormant accounts.
But by the same token if you exclude all of those dormant accounts - you have to wonder what the percentage of "problem gamblers" would be (measured purely by % of active accounts). By definition, none of the dormant or once a year types are "problem gamblers".
So if you were to recalibrate the % measurements to a more accurate/objective set of measures (i.e. just active accounts) it might be that via those new (more accurate) measures the % of gamblers that are "problem gamblers" isn't a figure that the on-line bookmakers would like to see in the public domain.
Obviously those percentage are indeed utter garbage - totally skewed by all the dormant and practically dormant accounts.
But by the same token if you exclude all of those dormant accounts - you have to wonder what the percentage of "problem gamblers" would be (measured purely by % of active accounts). By definition, none of the dormant or once a year types are "problem gamblers".
So if you were to recalibrate the % measurements to a more accurate/objective set of measures (i.e. just active accounts) it might be that via those new (more accurate) measures the % of gamblers that are "problem gamblers" isn't a figure that the on-line bookmakers would like to see in the public domain.
No doubt some mugs will be along soon to point out that I am just anti-bookmaker and bitter, etc, etc.
The reality is, I am just pointing out what a difficult position the on-line bookmakers have put themselves into with their behaviour. They have put themselves into a really challenging position (imo) as every counter argument they could potentially put forward seems to have a pretty massive down-side (imo).
The reality is, I am just pointing out what a difficult position the on-line bookmakers have put themselves into with their behaviour. They have put themselves into a really challenging position (imo) as every counter argument they could potentially put forward seems to have a pretty massive down-side (imo).
Stats are frequently and easily manipulated to suit.
I agree there is zero percentage the dormant accounts are problem gamblers given they are no longer active. As such should not be a factor or in the calculation. If so, without a shadow of doubt a few of these could be mine as I'd not bothered to deposit fund for reasons related to difficulty in withdrawal; difficulty in placing bets; poor customer service; etc; for at least 3/5 years.
However, I'd like to know what percentage of fines (including mega ones) reported were detected/highlighted overall? What percentage of these amongst the problem gamblers/big losers and addicts?
I do not believe the percentage quoted by bookies of the above is accurate or true.
I agree there is zero percentage the dormant accounts are problem gamblers given they are no longer active. As such should not be a factor or in the calculation. If so, without a shadow of doubt a few of these could be mine as I'd not bothered to deposit fund for reasons related to difficulty in withdrawal; difficulty in placing bets; poor customer service; etc; for at least 3/5 years.
However, I'd like to know what percentage of fines (including mega ones) reported were detected/highlighted overall? What percentage of these amongst the problem gamblers/big losers and addicts?
I do not believe the percentage quoted by bookies of the above is accurate or true.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539