There clearly is an opportunity for an entrepreneur here eg employ a group of trusted people with good cv and vouched for them; charge a standard fee for the service eg £50 per client (like a stockbroker); accept a deposit prior and place bets for the clients on tracks. I think this will suit a retiree. a day-out with a bit of pocket money.

@mrcombustible - no problem

Moke, works on all browsers and I am using edge.

Thanks, moke. I think it's been pretty explicit ever since this all started that they were going to ignore all savings ("he's using his savings to gamble - we must save him, and his family!"), but it's useful to have it confirmed.

If someone is a genuine pro, with no income, there's no point engaging with this process at all. At the first whiff of an investigation, just withdraw your balance, and don't give them a chance to freeze that balance in the name of anti-money laundering.

Then batten down the hatches - cancel subscriptions, don't renew memberships, that sort of thing - and use those savings for the reason you (hopefully) accumulated them in the first place - in case something unforeseen like this ever happened. It might be possible to work something using racecourse bookmakers again, but it wouldn't be easy. Then again, punting for a living was never supposed to be easy, or there wouldn't be anybody to win  money off in the first place.

Thanks 'screaming'. Another problem with this forum is the fact that one can't edit or delete messages once posted. With places like Patreon and others, one CAN do that which can be quite useful!

So I think you're saying 'take the money and run' which sounds like good advice to me (insert laughing emoji here), Well I'm relatively new to this Exchange malarky, so I'm still sort of getting used to it. If I do come to rely on it completely, then I'll have to change tactics from my 'normal' way of betting but us old geysers hate change! For a start I'm definitely NOT a layer, so backing to win only.

If it were just a case of having a deposit limit of £100 or £500 per month being slapped on you, but otherwise carry on regardless, well, that wouldn't be the end of the world. It's a hell of a lot easier to win to small stakes, and it would just be a case of building your bank up again until you can return to normal. Very annoying, completely unjustified, and all that, but I could swallow it.

The problem, as Potts discovered, is that it's coupled with a demand that you telephone them, with a threat of account suspension if you don't. No access to your money, just at the moment you need that money.

If you know you're going to fail that telephone interrogation, then you need to withdraw your money forthwith. Otherwise you're going to have to go through what you (mokegibboni) did just to get your own money back. And if you're an incomeless propunter, you'll probably have lost even that £100/month deposit limit by the end of it.

So, yes. If they come for you, just take the money and run.

These are just trial runs, screaming. Perhaps picking out the most unprofitable accounts (to them). No chance they will waste money interrogating each customer on their books that gets flagged up on an annual basis or whatever. What they are identifying now will be used to shape the software (imo).

My point from the start of this was and is "who are the people making the decisions and how are they qualified". How many bookmaker employees would you trust not to sell your address, bank details etc to the nearest criminal who is prepared to pay for them? That goes for junior bank staff as well. I never leave more than £100 in any account apart from savings accounts at a bank. I once lost £4000 in a business account with an electricity supplier that went bust so I am very cautious. Monthly direct debits can soon add up.

Something that I forgot to mention and that is that when these deposit restrictions were first applied to my account with this bookie they would only allow me a maximum deposit of £100 per month. Following my 'interrogation' (for want of a better word), it was increased to £200 and it remained at that level ever since. I really wanted a minimum of £500 per month, but they wouldn't entertain that.

@sageform - that's a risk that I'm prepared to take. I guess if the bookie goes under, then I'll lose my £1,000 float with them. I'm gambolling that that won't happen and I'm gambolling that the person in the bookie's office won't steal my money either!

At last a sensible punter who like Alan bothered to get off his backside and found no restrictions on bets. I owe Screaming an apology from many years past but the fact is he and Alan have not " Retired " just because of alleged restrictions online?

Explain that comment Quixall?

1.01 you cannot and no offers any bets at the price!!!!?

Is that supposed to mean something?

Maybe you are clueless on this as you normally are?

Alan did what he had to do on a Sociopathic thread so what is your accusation about 10 Faces?

Alan never forgave me for being Dave Nevisons mate despite years apart?

You claim you knew Dave but could never answer a simple question in what he always carried?

No problems with affordability checks for me so far. Just the usual problem of having no off-course bookmaker accounts left. And SP only in my town's betting shops.

But you have to make the best of what you've got. Being restricted to the exchange means I almost exclusively lay horses these days. Laying isn't something you tend to take seriously if you still have bookmaker accounts, with all the prices available to back horses. But I like this laying game a lot. If nothing else, I don't get those confidence sapping losing runs any more - the ones that used to go on for literally months sometimes.

I'd find it hard to return to backing horses now, for that reason. I used to grind my way through those losing runs back in the 1990s, and eventually come out on top on the other side. But I was talking about this with Fremantle the other day. How on earth did we used to stick it out? Day after day, travelling up and down the country to do another grand?

I suppose the answer was that we had no other option but to persevere. Eddie went on to talk about how his stakes (mostly backing) have declined these days. He says he looks back at his records, and sees how he used to aggressively follow the price out on a drifter, ending up having four or six hundred quid on it. He just doesn't seem to do that any more, he said, and put it down to getting old. He's only a couple of months or so older than me, and if he's old, then by definition so am I, so I wasn't going to let him get away with that.

I put it down to two things. Firstly that there isn't actually any point in being so aggressive these days, because the price of anything you'd like to buy has risen so far out of reach that you could never win enough to buy it any longer. I mean, I won enough in the 1991-2 season to buy a house. That's completely unfeasible now. (I mentioned that to Potts this afternoon, and, as he said, he paid off his mortgage when he got the Jackpot up one day; you'd never buy a house with a mortgage small enough to be paid off with a line on the Jackpot these days).

And that's the second thing. The stakes you can get on, at the prices you want, simply have not risen in line with inflation. It's true even right at the bottom of the market. My dad used to do shilling each way yankees in the 1970s, yet if you go into a shop now, punters are still doing 5p each way Lucky 15s.

Eddie mentioned that coup in Ireland the other day, with the two 100/1 Queally winners netting half a million on the double. As Eddie pointed out, that's only a 50 euro stake on the double. A century ago the Druid's Lodge Confederacy was having 200 times that on. In nominal terms!

Yet it's now that we're getting affordability checks!

I don’t tell lies Cagliari….not my style…..

good post screaming

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13427521/Charity-concerns-gambler-slot-machines-cashless.html