Affordability checks.

How’s that good news?

not sure what is going on - there is a "new code" that says that financial documents are not needed until net deposits are £25k, but on the other hand the proposals for checks (albeit "frictionless") are:

However, in the plans set out by the commission, that will change to those checks happening for customers with a net deposit of more than £150 a month on gambling, focusing on publicly available data. There was no mention of a yearly total.

The commission said that, following the consultation, it would not require operators to consider an individual’s personal details such as postcode or job title.

The checks will initially come into force at £500 a month from August 30 before reducing to £150 a month from February 28 next year.

The problem is what does "frictionless" mean? Will you have to give a betting firm authority for open banking?

links

https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/new-code-on-affordability-checks-is-a-hard-won-victory-but-concerns-remain-aG2Vg1H414Xe/
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/gambling-commission-confirms-plans-for-six-month-pilot-of-frictionless-affordability-checks-a8EAi3g1armJ/
.

Gambling Commission is a waste of money.  We need to do an affordability check to see whether public finances can really support organisations like this one.

Its just words from the Racing Post. No chance im giving open banking to anyone.

The initial proposals contained in the government's white paper had set a first tier of financial vulnerability checks at £125 net loss within a 30-day period or £500 within a year.

My tv and internet bill is over £500 a year, how the fk have we come to this?

The "new code" is "interim" - so it's not really very clear what the long-term implications are. Looks like a last minute break out of "common sense" (to some extent) and maybe a step in the right direction but still more questions than answers.


A tentative Well Done to Tom Kerr, The Racing Post and the BGC for deceiving proper punters and racing people into uniting to save their paymasters casino & slots empires. Maybe the gamble will pay-off after all.

I spend over £10k a year on cigarettes and alcohol, but no one is checking on me.

For enhanced checks the commission said it would carry out a pilot, working with credit reference agencies and gambling businesses, and examine potential consumer impact.

The initial proposals had set thresholds for the second tier of checks at losses of greater than £1,000 within a rolling 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days.

However, following the pilot the commission said it would explore "the exact financial thresholds the assessments would be conducted at".

Consumers will not be affected during the pilot period.

Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes said: "As a gambling regulator it’s vital that the introduction of new rules is based on evidence and takes into account the views of consumers and other interested parties.

Definitely more questions than answers and still very confusing.

What happens to accounts already closed and heavily restricted by spend budgets and deposit limits etc. It says on the racing post people are free to apply for their accounts back, though they may still be subject to checks and document requests for other reasons. So that basically means nothing changes.

Here's the problem: The BIG spenders that somewhat prop up racing in the UK have already left, and the BHA and everyone in racing knows this.

After all this, I imagine nothing changes and the money men will always get what they want.

Booster - I know we "fell out" quite violently when discussing this subject previously - but regardless of whether your predicament was caused by overly greedy bookmakers or interfering do-gooders, I do hope that todays development might see you extricate yourself from the position you had inflicted upon you. GL

Its a step in the right direction but the goal has to be to get all affordability checks removed.

The main thing at play with all of this now is politics.

The GC have made a right mess of this and are now looking, along with the politicians who supported them, to quietly save face.

No wonder it takes so long nowadays to see anything done in the UK - politicians and civil servants cannot be seen to have made mistakes.

In the real world, sadly one a lot of punters divorce themselves from with their tall tales of betting 'derring-do', the head of the GC should be resigning with immediate effect. After all, we've gone from the madness of £100 a day losses to £25k a year net deposits. What a climb down and it is my bet that most of this will fade away during the 'pilot' and the head of the GC will be moved elsewhere to start meddling in another group of people's lives!

Marksman 930 post

Absolutely spot on sir

Trying to understand these new revisions and pilot schemes is like trying to understand quantum physics and relativity. Yes, you think, I understand this bit, okay I can follow that bit... then, you put it all together and it's complete, self-contradictory nonsense.

It's Schroedinger's Cat all over again: punters are now simultaneously free to deposit 25 grand, unless they actually do so, in which case they'll be affordability-checked at the £150 mark.

Thanks TM.

I don’t see how this changes anything though. The GC has stated that companies are still required to take due diligence and step in when they think people might be experiencing harm or spending too much. They can still get fined for allowing you to gamble.

You are basically still at the mercy of the safer gambling squads, whether you spend £500 in a month or £5000. Nothing changes.

They need to announce that a customer is entitled to choose their own deposit limits, not have them either thrust upon them, or worse still, have their account closed by the betting company.

You just have to keep reminding yourself that all of the "players" in this "game" are utterly clueless about the subject matter and mostly incompetent - except for the "bookmakers".

MP's = Clueless and incompetent (both the Govt & Opposition)
GC = Clueless and incompetent
The Anti-Gambling movement = clueless and only semi-competent
Bookmakers (Despite bringing this entirely upon themselves) = Clued-up, joined-up/united, co-ordinated, cunning and conniving.
It's why I have maintained throughout that nothing (very) serious will come to pass at the end of this fiasco and if anything does come to pass, it certainly won't be a solution to problem gambling.

Booster Rooster is right. Now that the dust has settled, it looks as though the abolitionists at the Gambling Commission have got their way. This talk of a £25,000 figure is pure misdirection:

At lower levels of spend, bookmakers will be expected to continue carrying out customer interactions, including questionnaires, phone and live chat interactions and requests to set a deposit limit. If interactions show evidence of "potential financial vulnerability", bookmakers will be expected to deploy a range of interventions including deposit limits and account closures.


https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/new-interim-affordability-code-introduces-25000-threshold-for-submitting-financial-documents-abDWB3y7nnZq/

BoosterRooster01 May 24 11:46Joined: 17 Feb 01 | Topic/replies: 352 | Blogger: BoosterRooster's blog
Thanks TM.
I don’t see how this changes anything though

Not immediately - but I'd that think it will at some point. The lack of any "interim" guidance is to blame for a lot of problems. Now there is some and it looks much more sensible, proportionate and "liberal" (for want of a better word) that the nonsense that the books have been making up as they go along, things can surely only get better for the people that have unfairly got caught up in this fiasco.

I'm depositing and withdrawing more then ever,.never had a single problem. Are they checks just random?

*these

Still seem pretty random.

This time last year I could have made the same statement, depositing and withdrawing without any problems. Though then came the dreaded “intervention”.

Once they have you in the affordability net, they make it incredibly difficult for you to get out.

Summary is:

Net deposit threshold of £500 from August, then £150 from Feb 2025. Once per year this will trigger a financial vulnerability check with a credit bureaux which, essentially, just makes sure you're not bankrupt or in any serious arrears. No customer interaction will be required, and it won't affect your credit record. No need for open banking or any documents to be shared.

From August they will be piloting a scheme that uses a financial risk assessment from a credit bureaux to assess affordability in higher spenders. The thresholds are yet to be decided, but are targeted to equal approx 3% of active customers. In the RP they suggest this might be £5k net deposit per month. Again this should require no customer interaction, won't affect your credit record, and open banking is not required. It is anticipated that 0.3% of active customers will require interaction and sharing of bank statements etc if they trigger higher thresholds, such as the £25k net deposit per year suggested in the RP.

What people continue to miss is the mere fact that they are snooping around checking up on you, even if they are not bothering you directly, still constitutes intrusion.

All the limits and amounts that triggers this that and the other are completely pointless.

Nobody says what happens if you fail the checks, get flagged up, or if the company decide they need to intervene. At the moment, the customer either gets a heavily restricted deposit limit, or a closed account.

So people who fall into this, are being told they have to stop betting. Whether they are addicted, harmed, or just enjoy betting. The customer still has no say in this.

If it was that simple, addicts could just self exclude, and that would be that, all this financial stuff is completely unnecessary. Ultimately, whether winning, losing, addicted or professional, it is up to the punter to decide when they stop betting. All this achieves nothing.

And the books, many of whom have used this to mess about those punters they don't want will continue to do exactly the same thing anyhow.

When they want to get someone they'll just say, we know the limits have eased but we're responsible and don't agree so we'll get you out anyhow as it's our company and can do what we want.

The Management 01 May 24 10:14 
Booster - I know we "fell out" quite violently when discussing this subject previously - but regardless of whether your predicament was caused by overly greedy bookmakers or interfering do-gooders, I do hope that todays development might see you extricate yourself from the position you had inflicted upon you. GL

Jesus,talk about creepy…..violently on a forum….ffs…..yuk !

I hope the day-release/job placement traders here are aware of this new AC development. I think £25k per annum is a lot of money for gambling; just under 50% of the London wage of £44k.

So it's 25k net deposit a year whilst at the same time 150 a month???

How does the fook does that work then?

Tat aside, the mere fact that they are looking at you if you've done 150 in a month is clear evidence that precisey nothing has changed.

Whataboot the peops on a hunner a month

Seems like many are confused and probably do not understand that the Govt have given a concession that overrides the GC's proposals albeit on an interim basis and still involves statutory money laundering regulations?

The £25K cap on deposits is not sacrosanct or set in stone before checks are triggered as winnings are also allowed to be considered by bookmakers before any intrusion has to be made in terms of the £25K?

dave1357 the problem is what does "frictionless" mean? Will you have to give a betting firm authority for open banking?
The answer is if no risk is identified a customer would continue with no further action,  but what isn’t mentioned is that in certain cases due diligence would be assessed these checks would take place primarily via a credit reference agency, with no impact on credit score.
But affordability is just one of many checks that are done in Safer Gambling which may lead to Account restrictions, and these can also lead to Source of funds documents being asked for or deposit limits being applied.
layingisthewayforward with bookmakers the risk Assessments come when a customer shows up on the daily/weekly/reports and there are a lot of reports from If a customer comes through on a report of which there are many, examples being late night play, time spent playing online, playing through funds from a healthy winning position, high number of deposits daily/weekly etc
Not up to speed with how BF and the exchanges do their Safer Gambling checks they may have different variations on their reports than normal bookmakers when customers appear on these reports

What I resent most is AC is more stringent with a bookie than a tax return from HMRC. The latter is a legal government representative; the former a PLC without legal qualification or governance.

The sad thing is that all these limits, however implemented, are only per online bookmaker (or bookmaking group) because there is no way to aggregate a person's spend.  With so many providers out there - plus the ability to bet cash in shops, casinos or at the track - there's no limit in practice and the only people who will be affected are exchange players because Betfair has an effective monopoly.  Not that this moan is from self-interest of course...

That’s why they are pushing for single customer view, so that they can gather and share all your online betting data across every operator.

It’s obviously wrong, and they should not be allowed to do it. Though also pointless, as with betting shops, casinos, bingo halls, and a 24hr arcade full of slots in almost every town centre, any addict who gets stopped betting online can seamlessly transition their gambling to the land based sector. That’s even before you go down the road of betting in other peoples names, off shore, black market etc.

There was a conspiracy theory that this is all being done just to boost the land based sector. Whether that theory is true or not, that does look like being the outcome here. Loads of those 24 hr slot arcades out there already, I reckon there are going to be even more after this.

Fangsy, the reasoning behind asking for people to prove affordability is a perfect answer to your post. When the customer provides bank statements, wage slips etc these are assessed and from the findings a decision is made whether that customer is betting beyond their means,if any transactions are showing like paying back loans , playing from over draft, playing with other betting sites this is all taken into consideration in the decision of whether that customer will be allowed to carry on playing or account remains restricted or closed permenantly.
As for BF having a monopoly how about Smarkets,Matchbook,**** also Casino & Shops have their own safer gambling checks

Hello Gib, welcome to the forum

As you've stated you work for a bookie in Gibraltar...

When the gambling firm considers the customer's circumstances by looking at wage slips, bank statements etc as you say, before deciding on any limits... Are they all playing to the same guidelines? And who is monitoring this? What I'm suggesting is that no bookie wants to be over zealous if they think their rivals will be more lenient and therefore lose business to them

Like Freddie said earlier...what about the people currently on 100 a month???

not really an issue, they might get up to £150 a month, but they are still severely restricted.

Hi Regbutler  No is the quick answer, although there are rules limits restrictions they have to adhere from the Government The Gambling commission is the regulator, the government auditors are the department they are scared of and the likes of Gamcare, GamStop  BeGamble aware etc are the organizations they work with. 
The 3 I have worked for in last 5 years all had their own guidelines and ways to go about policing Affordability,  deposit limits, restrictions, thresholds, time spent online etc So what is considered to be a high amount of deposits say with DAZN.Bet would be an insignificant amount to WH and there threshold reports would be vastly different, same with time spent online or late night play. But primarily once a customer has been restricted, they mostly use the same follow up procedures.
DancingBraveTheBest   With regards to amounts mentioned on this post the 100 monthly would mostly be set for anybody who has previously self-excluded, come back from a Gamstop registered break, maybe on benefits, students etc or perhaps have mentioned in the past they have had difficulties but still wish to play.
The 25k upper limit mentioned would be an extreme to most people, using Affordability thresholds as an example, one I worked for they normally would have a rule of thumb 20% of monthly wage and set as net deposit  limit.
NDL is normally based on a rolling month rather than a 1st of the month to end of the month.
So if the NDL is 500 monthly and you withdraw 500 the total would in effect become a thousand but only 500 would theoretically be your own loss if you did actually deposit a thousand

Thanks for the reply Gib...

A couple of questions for you regarding Gibraltar if you don't mind...

I was last there about 10 years ago and went in a bookies called "Rock Bookmakers"... It was like a throwback to the 70s, the pens were on chains and ironically you had to pay 10% betting tax... In tax haven Gibraltar!!!
Don't know if the shop is still there and still tax on betting?

Also, as you said you lived in Spain, I guess you're in somewhere on the border like La Linea?
I visited a mate who lived there many years ago when working for Victor Chandler on the Rock... I'm sure he used to take his 200 cigs allowance back into Spain everyday to sell on and give him his beer money...
Don't know if that still goes on?
..

The Barbary apes surround you, demanding wages slips and bank statements before you are allowed in to the betting shop.

May 2, 2024 -- 9:59PM, Regbutler wrote:

Thanks for the reply Gib...A couple of questions for you regarding Gibraltar if you don't mind...I was last there about 10 years ago and went in a bookies called "Rock Bookmakers"... It was like a throwback to the 70s, the pens were on chains and ironically you had to pay 10% betting tax... In tax haven Gibraltar!!! Don't know if the shop is still there and still tax on betting?Also, as you said you lived in Spain, I guess you're in somewhere on the border like La Linea? I visited a mate who lived there many years ago when working for Victor Chandler on the Rock... I'm sure he used to take his 200 cigs allowance back into Spain everyday to sell on and give him his beer money... Don't know if that still goes on? ..

Morning Regbutler, The one in irish town went about 8 years ago, the one in Casemates square is still there in the corner but not called Rock now, not sure on the tax situation as ive not placed a bet there for 11 years, I think they still pay 3% on the betting oulets in the casino which now has a large inside/outside facility bit like massive sportsbar, the old Corals betting site inside casino has long since gone.
I never did the La Linea package, hated the place but it has improved visibly recently, I moved upto Duquesa been there 13 years now
The old sand pit were all the cars parked in La Linea has been replaced by massive car park, charge you by the month if you can prove your a cross border worker, arm & a leg if your a day visitor, although they introduced a nominal fee for cross border workers parking near the border 2.60 a day have to input with cross border workers code.
Did you work over here or visiting friends to get a bit of sun, btw the cigarettes thing changed you are now only allowed 200 per month if you can prove you live more than think its 3k from the border, obviously smokers just break packs 2-3 x 20 at a time so they dont get them taken away if pulled, Spanish ?? as far as i can see they still do the walk over border stuff everyday

The 150- 500 a month will be for the under 25s I believe. Most students cant afford big spend

no it isn't trident - it is for everyone

The Commission is implementing proposals aimed at better identification of acutely financially vulnerable online customers, identifying and supporting customers such as those subject to bankruptcy orders or those with a history of unpaid debts.

It will do this through light touch financial vulnerability checks for those customers with a net deposit of more than £150 a month on gambling.

They will focus solely on publicly available data and, following feedback through consultation, will not require gambling businesses to consider an individual’s personal details such as postcode or job title.

To ease introduction these checks will initially come into force at £500 a month from 30 August 2024 before reducing to £150 a month from 28 February 2025.

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/new-rules-boosting-safety-and-consumer-choice
.

Getting ridiculous now, my spend budget today just gone from £1500 to £100 for no reason and documents sent in months ago. Currently on chat with them now to see what they say!!

Hi, Today my spend budget has gone to £100 when it was £1500 a month as I sent in all my documents including bank statements, income etc. Why has it gone to £100.

Let me have a look. In the meantime, for security purposes can you please provide me with your favourite sports team and your date of birth?

Thanks for that.

Please bear with me for 5-10 minutes whilst I look into this for you.


Tbf I waited 14 mins.

Thanks for waiting. It seems this was adjusted temporarily whilst your account is under a standard review.

The team would like to reach out via call. Could you kindly advise a suitable timeframe and preferred contact number to arrange this call please?


So even when you send in docs you will still get annual review.

Waiting for phone call anytime in next 5 hours.

These firms must be holding fortunes of punters money because of people who daren't withdraw because of these checks.

Our borders are open to millions per year.Violent crime is rampant and mobs
are behaving the way mobs do while the Police stand by and do nothing.
Meanwhile the Government feels it a priority to investigate anyone who deposits
£150 in a month on here.
Oh but give illegal migrants £3000 to go and live rent free in Rwanda.

If the Government sees my gambling as a problem maybe it could see it's
way to giving me a few grand so I can afford my rent which currently
represents 75% of my monthly income!

£150 a month, dear oh dear.. Its the equivalent of a night out with the wife at a restaurant - once a month. Pathetic.

After 20 mins on the phone, conclusion was they don't believe my word that my situation hasn't changed even though they told me the conversation was recorded. So got to send in docs again so it's goodbye from me. Even said I didn't want to send them in first time mind every year, good luck with their business model.

Well fairweather make the most of it. Before long if you go to your fav.
restaurant more than once a month the Government will require the
proprietor to do an affordability check before accepting the reservation!

fairweather makes it clear him & the wife not spoonies regulars. Keep buttons in carla things may change.

Eating is fine, it's drink smoke and gambling they going after.

For now Carla.Where does it end?

stop the distractions - it is gambling and only gambling that where a government body is instructing its licensees to stop us spending our money as we like. They have completely ignored all the comments in the "consultation" whereas they should have responded to at least the more common ones.

There should be a judicial review over lack of meaningful consultation and as I have said before over human rights issues re the right to enjoy property.

ladycarla03 May 24 11:57Joined: 03 Sep 06 | Topic/replies: 4,389 | Blogger: ladycarla's blog
Eating is fine, it's drink smoke and gambling they going after.


It's a lot more than that I can assure you.

Stakeholder capitalism and CBDC the new model


you'll be limited to where you spend your new tokens and when - a digital panopticon
freedom of movement limited
freedom of speech under attack

social credit system a la China being babystepped in by end of decade

As dave has said stop the distractions and never mind free speech and China.

lol sparrow...  crack on then with yer heads down and see what you end up with

well one thing I am certain about is that clouded retard will have done absolutely fck all to protect us from the forthcoming dystopia he predicts.

Only where addiction or some sort of compulsion to play exists could these companies get away with treating customers like in these reports.
They asked me to verify my identity. I said I can't be bothered, so send my what you owe and close my account.
They said not until you confirm your ID. So I had to comply in order to get my cash, which is the only reason I'm still here.
They only get away with it because people are addicted to gambling.
Just give it up. You’ll soon find other things to do.

fairweather - you really ought to take the missus to nicer restaurants...

I've said this a million times and it winds me up and pi55es me off why no-one asks why it's allowed.

Whilst many like us have to jump through hoops, at the very same time you can't fecking fart for bingo sites being allowed morning noon and night.

The Chase at tea time whilst kids are watching is sponsored by a bingo site FFS....how does this mesh with increased gambling restrictions??? anyone know???

Just let people decide their own deposit limits.

Jesus h  . ladycarla

ladycarla,

Do you know what brought this on, was it deposits?

It's palpably ideological, duffy. This is what I am absolutely free to utilise on my 212 account. Many people do, and do their conkers.

1. Risk Warnings Related to CFDs

1.1. General Risks

CFDs are financial instruments that are traded on margin, enabling investors and traders to
participate in the movement of shares and index prices without having ownership of the
underlying asset.

Trading in CFDs may not be suitable for all investors due to its high risk and complex nature.
You may lose all or most of your initial payment and may be required to make additional
payments. You shall be responsible for your own trading decisions. If you are in any doubt,
you should seek independent advice.

CFDs are highly risky due to the speculative and volatile markets in these products and the
leverage (margin) involved. Trading these products may result in the loss of the entire funds
you deposited in the account. We are required by law to notify retail clients about the
percentage of Retail Clients who have lost money trading CFDs with us during the last 12
months

.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 75% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

Duffy- Basically the guy said it were a standard review because my deposit limit is 18K a year(1500x12) and they needed to know whether I could afford to lose that without my mental health being in danger!!

Rarely get anywhere near 1500 a month, for 2 years always done the same, left £300 in betfair, trade and take out the profit at end of the day and start again with 300.

Told the guy at least 5 times to look at my account and see I've done that for 2 years, last 12 months profit is 4.8k, again not interested, was all about income and I needed to prove it AGAIN so basically calling me a liar, don't need to put my business to a company that treats you like that.

Hey ho, won't change my life but I said, first account with betfair were June 2000 and I had some big bets in first 10 years, would love to know how much commission I have made them and did they do AC on me to see I could afford it, again he said, there's no way of getting the info up.

Anyway, I said I don't need 1500 a month, just set it at 750, was a no go, clearly stated its 100 a month till I send in more docs, he even had my docs in front of him on the screen but said they out of date need updating

Why keep takimg money out daily and depositing, that just attracts attention?

If it's only a few k a year, why not just leave it there and take it out at Christmas?

Jesus h..ladyc. u produced before and now needs update

Costs at least £200 to keep 4k in betfair for a year.

We all flucked

My money I thought could do what I like with it! Get your point but I've scaled right down these days used to leave 2K/3K, surely the figure doesn't matter and even 300 is enough to leave in.

P.S You did miss the point, didn't deposit all April so that doesn't make a jot of difference.

The whole thing is incredulous, nobody should dance to their tune. I don't mind proving ID, but that's where it ends.

Anyway withdrawn my funds and can't deposit so happy days for betfair Like I said what a business model they should get on Lord Sugar's program.

freddiewilliams03 May 24 18:29Joined: 12 Mar 06 | Topic/replies: 12,856 | Blogger: freddiewilliams's blog

Jesus h..ladyc. u produced before and now needs update

You couldn't make it up but the line ends there for me.

Makes no sense, I never leave a lot in and although I'm in profit overall the peeks and troughs that I experience it doesn't stop me having to deposit, touch wood though, haven't yet heard a peep out of them.

I even said, if I've got to do this every year that's 5 lots of my info on your software in next 5 years, I don't like that risk you should be protecting me more surely, didn't answer that one.

ladycarla ask for all your data under an access request . I really think there is something weird about getting asked for all your info again.

Send exact same docs again

Can't deposit. Everyone scared to withdraw. Gets bigger limit if u get a payrise

How is their behavour that encourages punters to keep money, including money that you may well need locked up in a betting account conducive with responsible gambling.

"Costs at least £200 to keep 4k in betfair for a year."

4k annual profit is average 2k for a year is £100 before tax at best rates is £60 after tax (unless you have bugger all income otherwise).

So all that buggering around for the price of a Pizza Express dinner for two?

Agree, you should send a Data Subject Access Request = modern day equivalent of gluing the locks if you make it very specific and detailed.

I will do something about it like you suggest but not spoiling my bank holiday. Might even set up a group like the post office scandal and get thousands back for all the past wrong doings the bookmakers have done!!!

Must be people out there who would get thousands if something like the PPI claim with banks had to pay out.

there are these new fangled things called ISAs, longbridge. not getting the maths either, 4k average balance over a year @5% is 200. there are relatively easy ways to top that, eg 7% edge saver, 7 % FD RS et al. the overriding key point anyway is I'd rather be getting protection from inflation for my cash assets, rather than it supplementing bookie coffers.

i agree with cider, it didn't matter a couple of years ago, but it is clearly in gambling companies interest now to encourage people to leave large balances and by selecting people for checks on a crude measure of deposits, ignoring anything other than very short term withdrawals.

Cider - he didn't say 4k balance, he said 4k winnings per year - so average balance 2k.

ISA a good shout if you haven't already maxed it out.

I was using a general figure, not pertaining to lc specifically. I suppose most people have a float they consistently draw down to (or deposit up to!), but depends on their MO, backers/layers etc, layers may need a bigger float. I feel like this is missing the overall point that it only benefits bookmakers to leave unnecessary cash deposits in accounts (at a cost to the individual). My inclination is not to give my money away, whether that be £3, £30 or £3000.

All of that maybe true, and the criticism of bookies legitimate but it comes down to the question of whether £200 interest is worth no longer using your account which is the outcome above.

It’s also known as cutting your nose off to spite your face, you might save 200 but forego potential 4K in profit.

Even if you are manipulated into holding larger balances, is that guaranteed to keep the account free from further intervention? That's rhetorical obviously, nobody knows. Just another variable in this sh1tshow.

Dave might find this too conspiratorial, but you current accounts used to give a return on deposits….now they not only don’t give one even in high interest environments, they actually charge a fee for owning an account used to pay bills.
The interest vanished and along came incentives given from clearing houses in the form of ‘cash back’ which ofc is the clipping of coins through the forced use of electronic payments.

I don’t know the answer to this, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find gambling transactions to be classed as cash advances by the very same people, and therefore not free.

but it wouldn’t surprise me to find gambling transactions to be classed as cash advances by the very same people, and therefore not free.

Not sure what point you are making. Internet gambling purchases were classed as cash advances on credit cards for quite some time before being banned. Don't know what the processing fee is on debit card deposits, but given the higher than average possibility of fraud and charge backs, I imagine it would be higher than eg groceries at sainsbury's.

The credit card payments were tightened years ago and banks still processed debit payments without hassle.
That seems to have changed recently going by anecdotal evidence provided on this forum where banks take exception with the latter, perhaps part of regulation.
And as we always see, societal habits are shaped by the implementation of charges/fees/taxes and or fines.
It could therefore be that debit transactions have implied costs now too.

I think the "anecdotes" are almost all related to anti-money laundering procedures rather than anti-gambling.

(Of course actual money launderers are rarely inconvenienced by these procedures)