Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Having just gone through this process I thought I’d give you lads a heads-up on what you might face. I first received a bizarre e-mail telling me I was banned from promotions (I was already) and that I should contact any other gambling firms I use to ask them to bar me too. It went downhill from there.
I noticed (rather than been told) that I’d been limited to £500 per month net deposits but was invited to increase this by contacting the helpdesk. Naively, I thought that by confirming I make steady money on the site, mainly bet on long-term markets, have paid PC frequently since it began and have not changed my betting patterns might end things quickly, but the bloke who rang me seemed to have no clue about gambling never mind Betfair or how serious exchange players might operate. Instead I was asked repeatedly from a script how comfortable I was with various aspects of my betting including how much I was betting at night (answer: zero), why I used the exchange rather than the Sportsbook, whether I used a strategy (doesn’t everyone?), whether I bet with other bookmakers, did I have trouble with the cost of living crisis and so on.
This raised my limit to £2,000pm but I want the flexibility to deposit more at certain times so agreed to a second interview. The second bloke seemed similarly clueless about gambling and was certainly not prepared to accept that making profits on the site was evidence of source of funds or affordability, so this was much more invasive than anti money-laundering checks would be. Having been quizzed again about my betting patterns, strategy and other income I sent in screen grabs of my bank account and some investments but this seems to have failed as I have not been contacted in the week since.
I was in a relaxed frame of mind for the interviews, but most people would have resorted to some industrial-strength language and hung-up. If quite wealthy, profitable clients are being prevented from spending their own money what about others? How much damage will be done to racing (in particular) if people just give up? And would this process really pick-up the true problem gamblers anyway if those doing the checks are just reading scripts?
I noticed (rather than been told) that I’d been limited to £500 per month net deposits but was invited to increase this by contacting the helpdesk. Naively, I thought that by confirming I make steady money on the site, mainly bet on long-term markets, have paid PC frequently since it began and have not changed my betting patterns might end things quickly, but the bloke who rang me seemed to have no clue about gambling never mind Betfair or how serious exchange players might operate. Instead I was asked repeatedly from a script how comfortable I was with various aspects of my betting including how much I was betting at night (answer: zero), why I used the exchange rather than the Sportsbook, whether I used a strategy (doesn’t everyone?), whether I bet with other bookmakers, did I have trouble with the cost of living crisis and so on.
This raised my limit to £2,000pm but I want the flexibility to deposit more at certain times so agreed to a second interview. The second bloke seemed similarly clueless about gambling and was certainly not prepared to accept that making profits on the site was evidence of source of funds or affordability, so this was much more invasive than anti money-laundering checks would be. Having been quizzed again about my betting patterns, strategy and other income I sent in screen grabs of my bank account and some investments but this seems to have failed as I have not been contacted in the week since.
I was in a relaxed frame of mind for the interviews, but most people would have resorted to some industrial-strength language and hung-up. If quite wealthy, profitable clients are being prevented from spending their own money what about others? How much damage will be done to racing (in particular) if people just give up? And would this process really pick-up the true problem gamblers anyway if those doing the checks are just reading scripts?
Show More
From OP: and that I should contact any other gambling firms I use to ask them to bar me too.
That is not affordability. It sounds like you have somehow stumbled into self-exclusion. Did your mates from the pub send the email on 1st April?
That is not affordability. It sounds like you have somehow stumbled into self-exclusion. Did your mates from the pub send the email on 1st April?
ramruna, I think you are seriously underestimating the garbage that will emanate from a CS rep who is entirely ignorant on the subject at hand and pushes buttons on his "help" system.
Just looked at my deposit page which has my (unchanged for years) limit and it states a review on May 1st. Should that be a cause or concern or does everyone have something similar?
Sparrow - I suspect your position is unchanged. I used to have no limit but my a/c now has a system that limits net deposits (i.e. deposits minus withdrawals) each calendar month.
dave1357, yes, it might well have been the Betfair chap who wandered off onto the wrong script.
No review on mine thankfully. I tend to think, like Fangsy, I'm quite safe as a small but consistent winner whose last deposit was in 2022 (and only 1 that year) but it seems you never know.
It wasn't that, Ram. I had an automatic looking e-mail saying "...we have decided you will no longer be eligible for promotional offers... We recommend that you contact and request the same from [others].". It stressed that my account would remain active. It's in a picture format I can't post here easily.
Brian 16 Apr 24 08:51
No review on mine thankfully.
You have looked on your deposit page and not noticed it under the limit figure?
Deposit Limit: A helping hand to do the counting - Active
Current Limit:
No review on mine thankfully.
You have looked on your deposit page and not noticed it under the limit figure?
Deposit Limit: A helping hand to do the counting - Active
Current Limit:
Yes Sparrow, my current limit is £1500 per day. No mention of review.
Thanks Brian, although my limit is a four figure monthly sum which varies depending on my withdrawals.
Sparrow- isn't that just the reset on 1st of every month?
I don't really know, carla. Just haven't taken notice before.
Fangsy -- I had an automatic looking e-mail saying "...we have decided you will no longer be eligible for promotional offers... We recommend that you contact and request the same from [others].". It stressed that my account would remain active. It's in a picture format I can't post here easily.
That is the part that sounds wrong. It sounds like a spoof by your mates or some sort of scam to get you to phone the number in the email and tell them your passwords, or just possibly something to do with self-exclusion.
You could save the image, or snapshot the email, and upload it to the forum with the "insert photo" button.
But if I were you, I'd contact Betfair via its website -- not using any details from that email -- and check you were in fact talking to them.
That is the part that sounds wrong. It sounds like a spoof by your mates or some sort of scam to get you to phone the number in the email and tell them your passwords, or just possibly something to do with self-exclusion.
You could save the image, or snapshot the email, and upload it to the forum with the "insert photo" button.
But if I were you, I'd contact Betfair via its website -- not using any details from that email -- and check you were in fact talking to them.
Fangsy -- the reasons it sounds odd are:-
1) the non-text format
2) why on earth would Betfair want you to stop getting bonuses from other firms?
1) the non-text format
2) why on earth would Betfair want you to stop getting bonuses from other firms?
Presumably Betfair have somehow decided that fangsy is a problem gambler and at-risk, hence he shouldn't be encouraged to gamble via promotions. And for his own safety he should not allow himself to be tempted by similar offerings from other firms.
I'm not questioning the stupidity of this - just pointing out why it's probably legitimate. The Gambling Commission might be insisting on such action for punters identified as being at-risk.
I'm not questioning the stupidity of this - just pointing out why it's probably legitimate. The Gambling Commission might be insisting on such action for punters identified as being at-risk.
screaming fbtw -- if Betfair think OP is a problem gambler, then presumably Betfair would block him but they have not done. As previously discussed, it is vaguely possible someone has got their scripts mixed up.
But safety first and Fangsy should urgently contact Betfair to check he has not been scammed.
But safety first and Fangsy should urgently contact Betfair to check he has not been scammed.
again ramruna you are really underestimating BF CS incompetence
Isn't there a grey area as to what to do about punters identified as problem gamblers though? Somewhere between blocking them completely and letting them carry on regardless. That's the whole point of affordability checks: a punter is losing and/or depositing regularly, so his deposits are restricted and the bookie is obliged to stop enticing him with promotions, but he's not barred from punting completely.
It's mad, I know, but it's where we are.
It's mad, I know, but it's where we are.
screaming fbtw -- lots of grey areas but also a complete mess foisted on us by punter complaints, bookmakers and the Racing Post's incompetent reporting that conflate different issues:-
Compulsive or addictive gambling, affordability checks, anti-money laundering and KYC are different things covered by different rules or laws, and that is without bookmakers removing or restricting unprofitable punters.
Affordability checks could disappear tomorrow and hardly anyone would notice because of all the other checks.
Compulsive or addictive gambling, affordability checks, anti-money laundering and KYC are different things covered by different rules or laws, and that is without bookmakers removing or restricting unprofitable punters.
Affordability checks could disappear tomorrow and hardly anyone would notice because of all the other checks.
I used to leave quite a large amount on deposit. I can now get 5.2% on savings, which means it's silly to do that anymore.
I had the review last year, and got £1000 a month, after being able to do whatever I wanted before.
I emailed a couple of days ago asking for an annual limit. In essence I want to be able to pay in, but also take out. The monthly deposit limits don't really fit with anyone who puts in and takes out.
I wonder based on the comments, whether an annual limit is even a thing, as everyone is talking about monthly deposit limits, which seem a bit inflexible really.
I had the review last year, and got £1000 a month, after being able to do whatever I wanted before.
I emailed a couple of days ago asking for an annual limit. In essence I want to be able to pay in, but also take out. The monthly deposit limits don't really fit with anyone who puts in and takes out.
I wonder based on the comments, whether an annual limit is even a thing, as everyone is talking about monthly deposit limits, which seem a bit inflexible really.
It's definitely a genuine e-mail - they followed it up with another mail and swung fully into action when I did the online chat. I'm sure screaming is correct that the GC might be behind the advice to get myself barred from others' offers. I took a photo of part of the mail (to make sure my name and username were not visible) and it may come through soon: it is currently "pending approval".
Why monthly limits are the norm makes no sense at all. I could lose £12,000 in a year, yet I'd be happy with a £10,000, or even £5,000 annual limit, if that was all they could approve.
No wonder volumes are going down and down.
No wonder volumes are going down and down.
kevinglass 16 Apr 24 12:08
I emailed a couple of days ago asking for an annual limit. In essence I want to be able to pay in, but also take out. The monthly deposit limits don't really fit with anyone who puts in and takes out.
If you withdraw an amount ie. £100 then your deposit limit should be credited for that figure.
I emailed a couple of days ago asking for an annual limit. In essence I want to be able to pay in, but also take out. The monthly deposit limits don't really fit with anyone who puts in and takes out.
If you withdraw an amount ie. £100 then your deposit limit should be credited for that figure.
Cheers Sparrow.
But my problem is, it's monthly. I took £7000 out in March, but could only pay £1000 back in, in April. So would now have to pay a thousand in for 7 months, and if I take it out, I'm back to where I started.
I only bet for fun, but like to trade a bit at the big festivals/races, and the thousand limit, means you can't really do a lot on the lay side.
Shame really. I lose a hobby, and Betfair lose my trade.
But my problem is, it's monthly. I took £7000 out in March, but could only pay £1000 back in, in April. So would now have to pay a thousand in for 7 months, and if I take it out, I'm back to where I started.
I only bet for fun, but like to trade a bit at the big festivals/races, and the thousand limit, means you can't really do a lot on the lay side.
Shame really. I lose a hobby, and Betfair lose my trade.
kevinglass, did your review come after you stopped keeping a large balance in your account and do you think that was the cause? (i.e. while betfair are getting the interest on the money instead of yourself they'll happily let AC stuff slide). FWIW I am similar to you, I need a large balance at certain points in the year and it only became expensive to do this in the past couple of years - so far I've not withdrawn / foregone the interest I could get elsewhere and so far I haven't run into AC issues.
I thought it said above the deposit was NET?
I.e. a deposit limit plus anything already withdrawn within that month?
So a 100 quid deposit having withdrawn 500 would amount to a limit of 600 for the month, no?
If it is this way then anyone affected would be best depositing at the end on each month wether required or not, then withdraw again turn of new month
That’s similar to what I do for ISA each tax year.
I.e. a deposit limit plus anything already withdrawn within that month?
So a 100 quid deposit having withdrawn 500 would amount to a limit of 600 for the month, no?
If it is this way then anyone affected would be best depositing at the end on each month wether required or not, then withdraw again turn of new month
That’s similar to what I do for ISA each tax year.
Re GoBallistic commment: are Betfair allowed to invest ring-fenced money for the gain of interest? I presume it would have to be left untouched in any way... though it wouldn't be a complete surprise if they did otherwise.
Personally though like you i've just built up a bank big enough to not have to make further deposits, and the loss of interest for me is effectively now just a business cost of having the account. With things the way they are, it's not worth the risk of doing otherwise.
Personally though like you i've just built up a bank big enough to not have to make further deposits, and the loss of interest for me is effectively now just a business cost of having the account. With things the way they are, it's not worth the risk of doing otherwise.
"are Betfair allowed to invest ring-fenced money for the gain of interest"
I see no reason why not - it's the captal that is ring-fenced/protected.
And if they have millions on deposit on our behalf with a bank, they'd be mad not to.
I see no reason why not - it's the captal that is ring-fenced/protected.
And if they have millions on deposit on our behalf with a bank, they'd be mad not to.
Although, when interest rates were very low, they would have been primarily concerned with the solvency of the bank, but now with substantial amounts to be made, they might not be so cautious.
It seems The system discourages you now from withdrawals. Which is counterintuitive. Essentially as long as you are winning at gambling and the company wants to lay the bets you should be able to at the very least bet that. Which now you cant at many firms. Its rules made by idiots.
Apr 16, 2024 -- 12:38PM, racing6699 wrote:
It seems The system discourages you now from withdrawals. Which is counterintuitive. Essentially as long as you are winning at gambling and the company wants to lay the bets you should be able to at the very least bet that. Which now you cant at many firms. Its rules made by idiots.
Absolutely correct.
My Affordability Check problems started, or so I was told, because I was betting late at night/early morning. This was just on the Sunday of The Masters last year, and I was only really checking my final positions. I had about £10k on deposit then, and left it. Withdrew about £3k for holidays and stuff over the next year, so was left with £7.5k or so.
So the intervention of a £1000 a month limit wasn't so problematic. The point is though, I only bet on Saturdays & the big Festivals on the TV, so why leave so much in there all the time when it's not being used?
The phone call was obviously scripted, and there was no chance to have a conversation. The advisor I suspect had no leeway from the script.
I do like to add big lumps for Politics betting, and would be doing so for the US & UK election.
Anyway, if my limit stays at £1k a month, Betfair will lose out on commission, ad I'll miss out on some fun. Shame, and bonkers really.
So the intervention of a £1000 a month limit wasn't so problematic. The point is though, I only bet on Saturdays & the big Festivals on the TV, so why leave so much in there all the time when it's not being used?
The phone call was obviously scripted, and there was no chance to have a conversation. The advisor I suspect had no leeway from the script.
I do like to add big lumps for Politics betting, and would be doing so for the US & UK election.
Anyway, if my limit stays at £1k a month, Betfair will lose out on commission, ad I'll miss out on some fun. Shame, and bonkers really.
That would be laughable if it was genuinely the case that betting outside "normal" UK hours could trigger AC issues (i.e. if you bet on sports occuring in USA, Australia etc). So stupid I'd not even considered it a possibility.
Gambling in 'unsociable hours' is one of the big red flags that bookmakers have to look out for and consider as part of a review.
jamee116 Apr 24 19:40Joined: 25 Jul 08 | Topic/replies: 2,139 | Blogger: jamee1's blog
Gambling in 'unsociable hours' is one of the big red flags that bookmakers have to look out for and consider as part of a review.
Got to disagree on this one, right now at (00.23am) how many tens of thousands are betting on slots and the magic roundabout right now!!!
Gambling in 'unsociable hours' is one of the big red flags that bookmakers have to look out for and consider as part of a review.
Got to disagree on this one, right now at (00.23am) how many tens of thousands are betting on slots and the magic roundabout right now!!!
I thought it said above the deposit was NET?
I.e. a deposit limit plus anything already withdrawn within that month?
So a 100 quid deposit having withdrawn 500 would amount to a limit of 600 for the month, no?
Not sure that’s true dusty,as I understand it withdrawal would restore the limit available but would not increase it above the £500 in your example
I.e. a deposit limit plus anything already withdrawn within that month?
So a 100 quid deposit having withdrawn 500 would amount to a limit of 600 for the month, no?
Not sure that’s true dusty,as I understand it withdrawal would restore the limit available but would not increase it above the £500 in your example
Haven't got it, just asked my son if he has one and he does, showed me where and I haven't got it, don't know why, perhaps they haven't got round to me yet.
duffy, try the safer gambling part of deposits and next to it click on "find out more" that's where mine is .
If you don't have one, it's because you haven't set one. (Unless it's doing it for some people automatically?). I took the view that if i put one in, it may trigger some software that says 'ooh this guy has set one, maybe he has a problem' and that someone follows it up.
Andriy,
I take the same view as you, never self exclude or voluntarily put in limits, rather than it being responsible, which I suppose it is, I always assume that "THEY" will look at it and say, "Oh look, he doesn't trust himself"
I take the same view as you, never self exclude or voluntarily put in limits, rather than it being responsible, which I suppose it is, I always assume that "THEY" will look at it and say, "Oh look, he doesn't trust himself"
I never set the limit to begin with but increased the one set some years later.
sparrow,
Looked there and all the options are there but I haven't opted in to any of that and it hasn't been forced on me yet.
Looked there and all the options are there but I haven't opted in to any of that and it hasn't been forced on me yet.
I'm paranoid now that by simply clicking on the safer gambling tab just to see what's there somehow will flag me up on the lines of "What's he looking in there for?"
Hey, Fangsy - is that photo of yours still pending approval?
Been well over 24 hours since you posted "pending approval".
Been well over 24 hours since you posted "pending approval".
Fangsy's green light was on and had been on for a while when I was compiling that post.
Now I see his green light's gone off!
Now I see his green light's gone off!
Apr 17, 2024 -- 9:50AM, duffy wrote:
I'm paranoid now that by simply clicking on the safer gambling tab just to see what's there somehow will flag me up on the lines of "What's he looking in there for?"
Same. So stupid isn't it. 
Af'noon all. It looks like this pic will work, but I've never uploaded before. Interesting about overnight bets being a red flag. They counted 6am as night so it's possible I made bets before then as I'm an early riser but it might also have been that I had bets matched overnight, which is routine for me as I leave literally thousands of long-term political bets around all the time.
I bet on the Aussie racing on a regularish basis, but I have done for 20 years
The bit about contacting other companies does sound like there has been some kind of betting trauma going on, does seem very strange comment.
Aside from the general absurdity of it, the fact that this preceded my interviews suggests they'd already made their minds up that I was a problem gambler based on some algorithm. But not problematic enough to close my account of course.
I fear that the Gamb Comm has set some tests that involve firms reporting how many people they've interviewed and/or restricted and this is part of achieving that, though I reckon anybody who was in desperate financial trouble because of gambling would have been able to answer the interview questions I faced convincingly so it is just pointless activity to tick some boxes.
I fear that the Gamb Comm has set some tests that involve firms reporting how many people they've interviewed and/or restricted and this is part of achieving that, though I reckon anybody who was in desperate financial trouble because of gambling would have been able to answer the interview questions I faced convincingly so it is just pointless activity to tick some boxes.
Due diligence (they will claim). I would definitely initiate a SAR. That could be amusing.
Chapman's piece the other day suggests that GOVT are imminently about to row back on the figures that currently are supposed to flag up accounts.
Nick Luck said on his pod that he'd followed up on it and seemed to get the same info.
Nick Luck said on his pod that he'd followed up on it and seemed to get the same info.
The GC haven't yet released the results of their consultation, which was due this month, so something might be up.
I agree with others; the wording of that line about contacting other operators to withdraw the offers sounds so daft.
Like saying here’s a knife, cut your bollox off.
But nothing seems to surprise me atm with all this nonsense going on.
I’ve read many times the suggestion alcohol or sugar are next…but sugar in drinks was already banned in 2018, and alcohol is getting priced out of the impecunious in Scotland as we speak (as well as a coddling of speech)
The paranoia has good reason, but I doubt it has anything to do with self imposing limits, nor looking at certain pages. There is little doubt in my mind an assessment has been made on an individual’s value to the firm, if you don’t provide any then any reason is reason enough to use you as offering to the great post modern society being dreamed up by fools.
As has been questioned before, even if there is a rowing back on these issues (or infact a right to contest with an adjudicator) who is going to speak up for those already sanctioned?
Like saying here’s a knife, cut your bollox off.
But nothing seems to surprise me atm with all this nonsense going on.
I’ve read many times the suggestion alcohol or sugar are next…but sugar in drinks was already banned in 2018, and alcohol is getting priced out of the impecunious in Scotland as we speak (as well as a coddling of speech)
The paranoia has good reason, but I doubt it has anything to do with self imposing limits, nor looking at certain pages. There is little doubt in my mind an assessment has been made on an individual’s value to the firm, if you don’t provide any then any reason is reason enough to use you as offering to the great post modern society being dreamed up by fools.
As has been questioned before, even if there is a rowing back on these issues (or infact a right to contest with an adjudicator) who is going to speak up for those already sanctioned?
The worst scenario would be that the GC shelves everything until after the election. That would mean that we still get ACs but without any strategies based on GC rules, that can be used to avoid being restricted.
Just had an email asking for a convenient time to ring me, to see if they can help with my deposit limit. (£1k monthly at the moment).
That will be interesting.
That will be interesting.
Wouldn't full transparency be great and save Betfair and customers a lot of time and hassle. Just tell us the circumstances that will trigger the different levels of checks. Far too sensible though
In my second interview I was asked to submit screen grabs showing my name and sufficient funds to prove that a one-off deposit of £10k would be affordable. More than a week later Betfair has just come back saying:
"Thank you for submitting these documents in relation to your deposit request, however in this case we will require further documents.
"With regards to savings and investment accounts we would require the full statements. For savings accounts can you please submit a full monthly bank statement. For your investments we would require an investment statement or copy of your investment portfolio."
I didn't actually want to make an immediate deposit - just get clearance to make one in the future. I'm clearly not going to bother with all this palaver and I doubt many others would either; I'll just bet less in some markets and ignore others I would have bet in. Remember I'm a client of 20 years' standing who makes a steady profit so it's very difficult to see quite what is going over there. Thank goodness we've been promised the checks will be frictionless...
"Thank you for submitting these documents in relation to your deposit request, however in this case we will require further documents.
"With regards to savings and investment accounts we would require the full statements. For savings accounts can you please submit a full monthly bank statement. For your investments we would require an investment statement or copy of your investment portfolio."
I didn't actually want to make an immediate deposit - just get clearance to make one in the future. I'm clearly not going to bother with all this palaver and I doubt many others would either; I'll just bet less in some markets and ignore others I would have bet in. Remember I'm a client of 20 years' standing who makes a steady profit so it's very difficult to see quite what is going over there. Thank goodness we've been promised the checks will be frictionless...
Lucky old you Kevin! I'd expect you'll be treated the same as I was but hopefully not
As mentioned in my previous post regarding how it would be advisable for those sanctioned to make use of the deposit limit every month irrespective of whether needing it or not….
I recently deposited a considerable sum into my broker account to keep my ISA wrapper to that amount alive into the next financial year.
Not a single question was asked, and it’s not as though I have that much history with them either, I havnt placed a trade in 2 years.
I recently deposited a considerable sum into my broker account to keep my ISA wrapper to that amount alive into the next financial year.
Not a single question was asked, and it’s not as though I have that much history with them either, I havnt placed a trade in 2 years.
^ that is to show the outright absurdity of the position they have made for themselves
Where anything gambling gets excused if it the general activity of those higher up the echelons of society (in their eyes)
Where anything gambling gets excused if it the general activity of those higher up the echelons of society (in their eyes)
"Wouldn't full transparency be great and save Betfair and customers a lot of time and hassle. Just tell us the circumstances that will trigger the different levels of checks. Far too sensible though"
No way they would do that - would be seen as facilitating avoidance of checks for problem gamblers surely?
No way they would do that - would be seen as facilitating avoidance of checks for problem gamblers surely?
I agree Longbridge... but posting after midnight is bound to put you in their cross-hairs so watch your step!
I would bet my last pound there's no triggers for playing slots or the magic roundabout after midnight, in fact you can play the wheel on mainstream tv after midnight 
longbridge19 Apr 24 00:54Joined: 25 Nov 10 | Topic/replies: 4,560 | Blogger: longbridge's blog
"Wouldn't full transparency be great and save Betfair and customers a lot of time and hassle. Just tell us the circumstances that will trigger the different levels of checks. Far too sensible though"
No way they would do that - would be seen as facilitating avoidance of checks for problem gamblers surely?
I disagree. Whilst the whole premise of what is happening is outrageous ("draconian and intrusive" as they love to say in the Racing Post), surely the entire objective is preventative and to change behaviours.
Being honest, clear and transparent would achieve this - behaviours would change.
Everybody that got caught in the net would have only themselves to balme. They knew the clearly stated triggers and they breached them.
As things stand, with every on-line casino (masquerading as a "bookmaker") making it up as they go along in a panic stricken frenzy, probably half the people being snared are just collateral damage in their PR exercise to try to limit the damage they have brought upon themsleves.
"Wouldn't full transparency be great and save Betfair and customers a lot of time and hassle. Just tell us the circumstances that will trigger the different levels of checks. Far too sensible though"
No way they would do that - would be seen as facilitating avoidance of checks for problem gamblers surely?
I disagree. Whilst the whole premise of what is happening is outrageous ("draconian and intrusive" as they love to say in the Racing Post), surely the entire objective is preventative and to change behaviours.
Being honest, clear and transparent would achieve this - behaviours would change.
Everybody that got caught in the net would have only themselves to balme. They knew the clearly stated triggers and they breached them.
As things stand, with every on-line casino (masquerading as a "bookmaker") making it up as they go along in a panic stricken frenzy, probably half the people being snared are just collateral damage in their PR exercise to try to limit the damage they have brought upon themsleves.
I see where you're coming from TM, but if the limit were pre-announced - say £1k of losses pcm - wouldn't problem players realise they have to open multiple accounts and avoid scrutiny for much longer? It's a very difficult topic; personally I'd be prepared to suffer some restrictions if it saved saved others from serious harm, but BF's approach seems to have nothing to do with helping problem gamblers and everything to do with looking like they are to avoid GC fines.
P.S. following BF's request for me to send full details of my investment portfolio I've asked my provider how happy they would be about me providing such details to someone with my full name, address, bank details and DOB.
P.S. following BF's request for me to send full details of my investment portfolio I've asked my provider how happy they would be about me providing such details to someone with my full name, address, bank details and DOB.
Fangsy19 Apr 24 11:58Joined: 19 Aug 03 | Topic/replies: 446 | Blogger: Fangsy's blog
I see where you're coming from TM, but if the limit were pre-announced - say £1k of losses pcm - wouldn't problem players realise they have to open multiple accounts and avoid scrutiny for much longer?
At the moment - probably yes - while it's a panic stricken mess with no set rules.
But all the "collateral damage" people on here, that most likely only bet on here? I guess most of them, had they known (in advance) the set triggers, would have avoided getting snared. e.g. The set trigger is £1000 net deposits per month, they hit £999 and they stop. They avoid being snared because they knew the limit and mission accomplished - you have changed their behaviour!
As you say though, in this scenario (behaviour changed without ridiculous, complicated mess), the books would not be able to submit a pretty slide show, demonstrating how much they care and how much they are doing to protect their customers!
I see where you're coming from TM, but if the limit were pre-announced - say £1k of losses pcm - wouldn't problem players realise they have to open multiple accounts and avoid scrutiny for much longer?
At the moment - probably yes - while it's a panic stricken mess with no set rules.
But all the "collateral damage" people on here, that most likely only bet on here? I guess most of them, had they known (in advance) the set triggers, would have avoided getting snared. e.g. The set trigger is £1000 net deposits per month, they hit £999 and they stop. They avoid being snared because they knew the limit and mission accomplished - you have changed their behaviour!
As you say though, in this scenario (behaviour changed without ridiculous, complicated mess), the books would not be able to submit a pretty slide show, demonstrating how much they care and how much they are doing to protect their customers!
btw - I still think this will all turn out to be a storm in a teacup and that common sense will prevail.
In that scenario - my guess would be that nearly all the people snared thus far, would not have got snared under the actual "rules" that eventually get put in place. The whole exercise will turn out to be a self inflicted fiasco by the on-line bookmakers.
In that scenario - my guess would be that nearly all the people snared thus far, would not have got snared under the actual "rules" that eventually get put in place. The whole exercise will turn out to be a self inflicted fiasco by the on-line bookmakers.
The anti-gambling mob wouldn't have expected a deposit limit of £100 per month (£3 per day) in their wildest dreams.
Yet that is the limit that most on-line bookmakers chose to go with during their panic stricken bodged effort to demonstrate that they had seen the error of their ways. Sure, maybe the books set it ridiculously low to cause as much outrage and push-back as possible, in order to bolster their support - but either way it was self-inflicted and has been a fiasco of their own making.
Yet that is the limit that most on-line bookmakers chose to go with during their panic stricken bodged effort to demonstrate that they had seen the error of their ways. Sure, maybe the books set it ridiculously low to cause as much outrage and push-back as possible, in order to bolster their support - but either way it was self-inflicted and has been a fiasco of their own making.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539