Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Figures showing a massive rise in visits by UK punters to unlicensed bookmakers offering horseracing demonstrate that the threat of the black market is becoming reality, the BHA has said.
A report compiled by James Porteous, head of research for the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities' (IFHA) council on anti-illegal betting and related crime, found that the number of unique customers visiting 22 unlicensed sites taking bets on British racing had grown by 522 per cent between August 2021 and September 2024.
By contrast, unique visitor traffic to ten legal websites offering betting on horseracing had grown by only 49 per cent over the same period.
Total visitor traffic from the UK to the unlicensed betting websites had grown by 131 per cent since August 2021, compared to 25 per cent to legal bookmakers.
The report also noted that the 22 unlicensed operators did not represent even the majority of the unlicensed market visited by UK bettors.
It added that traffic from the UK to unlicensed websites offering British horseracing had "grown significantly, from an admittedly small base, and faster than the legal market".
Both racing's leadership and bookmakers have warned that the affordability checks proposed as part of the last government's gambling review and set out in the 2023 white paper could drive punters to the black market. Checks already in place have also had a major impact.
Gambling Commission figures published in December showed online betting turnover on British horseracing had dropped by £1.6 billion in the last two years, representing a £3bn decline when adjusted for inflation, while the BHA's October 2023 'Right to Bet' survey of more than 14,000 racing bettors found that one in ten were already using the black market for their betting.
The IFHA report said that no direct causation could be made to recent regulatory developments in Britain, but added: "The apparent growth in demand for unlicensed betting options from UK bettors does echo findings elsewhere that over-regulating legal betting markets may drive consumers to unlicensed markets, which is the exact opposite effect intended by well-meaning regulators."
The BHA’s acting chief executive Brant Dunshea said: "From the outset of the Gambling Act review, British racing has repeatedly warned of the unintended consequences of well-meaning policy decisions on our sport, including the threat of inadvertently growing unlicensed market activity. This study certainly demonstrates that very concerning threat becoming reality.
"For every racing customer that leaves the legal market for the unlicensed one, they are putting themselves at increased risk with lessened consumer rights and protections. Unlicensed operators also make no financial contribution to the ecosystem of British racing or the Exchequer."
Dunshea said the BHA had noted increased enforcement action by the Gambling Commission but added: "We will be sharing these findings with government and hope it will work with us to encourage bettors to stay in the legal market given this growing leakage.
"The study serves as a further reminder of why it’s important for gambling regulations to be both balanced and proportionate, with those who are betting safely on racing allowed to do so without interruption."
The IFHA report said that one major spike in activity in the unlicensed segment around April 2024 had been almost entirely attributed to one operator which received large referral traffic from affiliate marketing sites promoting operators who accept customers signed up to the UK’s Gamstop self-exclusion scheme.
During February to July 2024, 16.75 per cent of visits to that particular operator came from such a referral site.
The report added: "In other words, a large portion of this traffic spike will be from bettors searching for websites which are not blocked under Gamstop.
"This underlines the fact that unlicensed betting operators often actively target the most vulnerable bettors – those who have voluntarily requested to be denied access to UK licensed betting operators."
Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Grainne Hurst described the figures as "concerning statistics" which confirmed "a worrying trend we have long warned could happen".
She added: "It’s clear the unregulated illegal gambling black market is growing, and even outpacing, the regulated market.
“A recent landmark study funded by the Betting and Gaming Council found 1.5m Brits are spending up to £4.3bn on the gambling black market. These operators do nothing to promote safer gambling, do not support sports like horseracing and don’t raise a penny for the Treasury.
"We have been clear, balanced regulations and a stable tax regime are the best defence against the black market. If that doesn’t happen, these statistics will only go one way, with far-reaching negative consequences for our sector, and sports like racing."
A report compiled by James Porteous, head of research for the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities' (IFHA) council on anti-illegal betting and related crime, found that the number of unique customers visiting 22 unlicensed sites taking bets on British racing had grown by 522 per cent between August 2021 and September 2024.
By contrast, unique visitor traffic to ten legal websites offering betting on horseracing had grown by only 49 per cent over the same period.
Total visitor traffic from the UK to the unlicensed betting websites had grown by 131 per cent since August 2021, compared to 25 per cent to legal bookmakers.
The report also noted that the 22 unlicensed operators did not represent even the majority of the unlicensed market visited by UK bettors.
It added that traffic from the UK to unlicensed websites offering British horseracing had "grown significantly, from an admittedly small base, and faster than the legal market".
Both racing's leadership and bookmakers have warned that the affordability checks proposed as part of the last government's gambling review and set out in the 2023 white paper could drive punters to the black market. Checks already in place have also had a major impact.
Gambling Commission figures published in December showed online betting turnover on British horseracing had dropped by £1.6 billion in the last two years, representing a £3bn decline when adjusted for inflation, while the BHA's October 2023 'Right to Bet' survey of more than 14,000 racing bettors found that one in ten were already using the black market for their betting.
The IFHA report said that no direct causation could be made to recent regulatory developments in Britain, but added: "The apparent growth in demand for unlicensed betting options from UK bettors does echo findings elsewhere that over-regulating legal betting markets may drive consumers to unlicensed markets, which is the exact opposite effect intended by well-meaning regulators."
The BHA’s acting chief executive Brant Dunshea said: "From the outset of the Gambling Act review, British racing has repeatedly warned of the unintended consequences of well-meaning policy decisions on our sport, including the threat of inadvertently growing unlicensed market activity. This study certainly demonstrates that very concerning threat becoming reality.
"For every racing customer that leaves the legal market for the unlicensed one, they are putting themselves at increased risk with lessened consumer rights and protections. Unlicensed operators also make no financial contribution to the ecosystem of British racing or the Exchequer."
Dunshea said the BHA had noted increased enforcement action by the Gambling Commission but added: "We will be sharing these findings with government and hope it will work with us to encourage bettors to stay in the legal market given this growing leakage.
"The study serves as a further reminder of why it’s important for gambling regulations to be both balanced and proportionate, with those who are betting safely on racing allowed to do so without interruption."
The IFHA report said that one major spike in activity in the unlicensed segment around April 2024 had been almost entirely attributed to one operator which received large referral traffic from affiliate marketing sites promoting operators who accept customers signed up to the UK’s Gamstop self-exclusion scheme.
During February to July 2024, 16.75 per cent of visits to that particular operator came from such a referral site.
The report added: "In other words, a large portion of this traffic spike will be from bettors searching for websites which are not blocked under Gamstop.
"This underlines the fact that unlicensed betting operators often actively target the most vulnerable bettors – those who have voluntarily requested to be denied access to UK licensed betting operators."
Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Grainne Hurst described the figures as "concerning statistics" which confirmed "a worrying trend we have long warned could happen".
She added: "It’s clear the unregulated illegal gambling black market is growing, and even outpacing, the regulated market.
“A recent landmark study funded by the Betting and Gaming Council found 1.5m Brits are spending up to £4.3bn on the gambling black market. These operators do nothing to promote safer gambling, do not support sports like horseracing and don’t raise a penny for the Treasury.
"We have been clear, balanced regulations and a stable tax regime are the best defence against the black market. If that doesn’t happen, these statistics will only go one way, with far-reaching negative consequences for our sector, and sports like racing."
Show More
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/explosion-in-black-market-gambling-as-unregulated-betting-site-traffic-surges-522-per-cent-a3kzR8Q4DUcr/
Betting with crooks; what could possibly go wrong?
Betting with crooks; what could possibly go wrong?
Head of research for the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities' (IFHA) council on anti-illegal betting and related crime
did James make that up himself ??
did James make that up himself ??
james's parent invite Barbara and Quentin round for Sunday lunch.
yes, James is doing awfully well at the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities' (IFHA) council on anti-illegal betting and related crime.
He's made it to Head of Research.
yes, James is doing awfully well at the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities' (IFHA) council on anti-illegal betting and related crime.
He's made it to Head of Research.
Perhaps now would be a good time for a concerted effort writing to MPs, DCMS, and Gambling Commission, making reference to the above research, suggesting that UK licenced bookmakers should be obliged to lay bets as part of their licence conditions, as refusal to take bets is a major contributory factor to going elsewhere. And if you have to go elsewhere for your horseracing bets you will also give them your custom for other bets.
Yet this gimp, who is completely out of his depth and in no way qualified to hold this position in the first place is still in the Job. Why?
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/gambling-commission-chief-andrew-rhodes-claims-risk-of-gambling-black-market-is-overstated-aKLNF7G3lcbI/
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/gambling-commission-chief-andrew-rhodes-claims-risk-of-gambling-black-market-is-overstated-aKLNF7G3lcbI/
1.5m Brits are spending up to £4.3bn on the gambling black market.
……..…../´¯/)……….. (\¯`\
…………/….//……….. …\\….\
………../….//………… ….\\….\
…../´¯/…./´¯\………../¯ `\….\¯`\
.././…/…./…./.|_……_| .\….\….\…\.\..
(.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(. \….)….)….).)
.\…………….\/…/….\. ..\/……………./
..\…………….. /……..\……………..…/
….\…………..(………. ..)……………./
……..…../´¯/)……….. (\¯`\
…………/….//……….. …\\….\
………../….//………… ….\\….\
…../´¯/…./´¯\………../¯ `\….\¯`\
.././…/…./…./.|_……_| .\….\….\…\.\..
(.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(. \….)….)….).)
.\…………….\/…/….\. ..\/……………./
..\…………….. /……..\……………..…/
….\…………..(………. ..)……………./
surely these bookies are laying an exchange price -30%
Assuming the research is true (associated research has a tendency to inflate their findings), but can this be blamed solely on Accountability Check (AC)? This has been happening over the past few years due to bet restrictions and closing of recreational accounts by bookies.
Appoint qualified administrators and monitors for AC in order AC is prudently and correctly carried out - not overzealously by bookies - to bait the Gambling Commission. And, more importantly and urgently separate fobt ie casino games and slots, from horseracing betting altogether. Fobt and horseracing are two totally different betting products. The former is gaming and pure chance - no skill involved; the latter is skill and experience gathered from research over a period of time.
And, ignore the professional disingenuity, musing and inaccurate codswallop from the RACING POST. They are the conduit and peddlers of the "crack cocaine" of gambling!!
Appoint qualified administrators and monitors for AC in order AC is prudently and correctly carried out - not overzealously by bookies - to bait the Gambling Commission. And, more importantly and urgently separate fobt ie casino games and slots, from horseracing betting altogether. Fobt and horseracing are two totally different betting products. The former is gaming and pure chance - no skill involved; the latter is skill and experience gathered from research over a period of time.
And, ignore the professional disingenuity, musing and inaccurate codswallop from the RACING POST. They are the conduit and peddlers of the "crack cocaine" of gambling!!
They take a decent bet. And are quick to pay out. Do you research from friends and family for the ones that have good customer feedback.
Pay no Attention from the Racing Post.They are the ones who have served people the slots and free spins, and shouldnt be trusted with any storyline.
Pay no Attention from the Racing Post.They are the ones who have served people the slots and free spins, and shouldnt be trusted with any storyline.
We should be able to make educated choices...Regulation does give some protections, but the UK has gone mad on gambling regulation(s) (bar the lottery) where you can spend what you like.
I dont need a nanny to make decisions for me... Its ridicilous that a company can decide to restrict how much money i can spend with them having been forced to by government...Its barmy. Almost a prohibition....
I dont need a nanny to make decisions for me... Its ridicilous that a company can decide to restrict how much money i can spend with them having been forced to by government...Its barmy. Almost a prohibition....
The irony!
Regarding sports betting, for 20 odd years the licensed and supposedly regulated (UK) bookmakers have behaved however they like (refusing bets, restricting accounts, closing accounts and even welching on winning bets) - as if they were not licensed or regulated at all.
In those same 20 years the unlicensed and unregulated bookmakers have behaved as though they were regulated! They just take bets, any bets, from anybody (adjusting their prices as necessary) and pay out.
So you can blame the regulator for the very recent growth in so-called "Black Market" activity because now they are finally regulating it turns out they are completely hopeless at it and only focussed on one aspect of it - but the previous 20 odd years where they didn't bother to enforce the 2005 Act? All of that so-called growth in the "Black Market" is 100% due to the behaviour of UK bookmakers refusing to be behave like bookmakers.
As regards gaming (casino and slots) the UK bookmakers have a fair point. Those naughty "Black Market" operators are now behaving just like UK bookmakers have behaved for the past 20 years (before the GC recently stepped in). They are targeting the vulnerable, grooming addicts via marketing, advertising and social media, not bothering with promoting safer gambling. It's like the UK bookmakers have had their playbook stolen!
In a nutshell UK bookmakers are complaining that those naughty "Black Market" operators are behaving just like they have behaved themselves for the past 20 years!
The only difference is that the Asian bookmakers are still actually bookmakers as well - so you can still get a sports bet on without being restricted or having your account closed.
Regarding sports betting, for 20 odd years the licensed and supposedly regulated (UK) bookmakers have behaved however they like (refusing bets, restricting accounts, closing accounts and even welching on winning bets) - as if they were not licensed or regulated at all.
In those same 20 years the unlicensed and unregulated bookmakers have behaved as though they were regulated! They just take bets, any bets, from anybody (adjusting their prices as necessary) and pay out.
So you can blame the regulator for the very recent growth in so-called "Black Market" activity because now they are finally regulating it turns out they are completely hopeless at it and only focussed on one aspect of it - but the previous 20 odd years where they didn't bother to enforce the 2005 Act? All of that so-called growth in the "Black Market" is 100% due to the behaviour of UK bookmakers refusing to be behave like bookmakers.
As regards gaming (casino and slots) the UK bookmakers have a fair point. Those naughty "Black Market" operators are now behaving just like UK bookmakers have behaved for the past 20 years (before the GC recently stepped in). They are targeting the vulnerable, grooming addicts via marketing, advertising and social media, not bothering with promoting safer gambling. It's like the UK bookmakers have had their playbook stolen!
In a nutshell UK bookmakers are complaining that those naughty "Black Market" operators are behaving just like they have behaved themselves for the past 20 years!
The only difference is that the Asian bookmakers are still actually bookmakers as well - so you can still get a sports bet on without being restricted or having your account closed.
It must be really frustrating for the UK bookmakers - investing all of their time, guile and cunning into identifying, profiling and grooming addicts - then they only get a 20 year run at rinsing them, before somebody else comes along and steals their ill gotten gains.
"Please Miss, I know I've stolen the lunch money and kicked the absolute sh1t out of every weakling in the playground for the past 20 years - but now you've finally realised and stopped me - that new Asian kid is doing it"
"Please Miss, I know I've stolen the lunch money and kicked the absolute sh1t out of every weakling in the playground for the past 20 years - but now you've finally realised and stopped me - that new Asian kid is doing it"
take a look at the list of referral bookies on the RP site, there's at least 20 I wouldn't touch with a bargepole.
https://www.racingpost.com/free-bets/
https://www.racingpost.com/free-bets/
You'd be fine with all of those - as long as you just deposit and lose.
Obviously if you wanted to make a withdrawal - you would experience massive issues!
Obviously if you wanted to make a withdrawal - you would experience massive issues!
how about this little lot from BetGoodwin...
Any identity checks we are required to conduct pursuant to applicable anti-money laundering regulations and rules or other obligations are clear. To this end we reserve the right to seek such other information from you as we might require in order to confirm your identity and compliance with these Terms and Conditions and any other applicable rules, laws or regulations. For the avoidance of doubt, we may request from you copies of one or more of the following documents to meet these requirements: - Your photo identification (valid passport or driving licence) - The front of the card you used to deposit (obscuring the middle 8 digits of your 16-digit card number) - A bank statement (issued within the last 3 months) accompanied by a payslip - A tax return document - A statement that shows regular income on your account. - Potential Inheritance or proof of ownership of potential capital so as we can determine a source of wealth - Anything else we could determine as a source of income e.g. P60, P45 In the event we require any of the above information from you, someone from Betgoodwin will contact you either via your registered email address or via your contact telephone number also registered with us. Details on how this information can then be sent to Betgoodwin will be made clear in these communications; and
Any identity checks we are required to conduct pursuant to applicable anti-money laundering regulations and rules or other obligations are clear. To this end we reserve the right to seek such other information from you as we might require in order to confirm your identity and compliance with these Terms and Conditions and any other applicable rules, laws or regulations. For the avoidance of doubt, we may request from you copies of one or more of the following documents to meet these requirements: - Your photo identification (valid passport or driving licence) - The front of the card you used to deposit (obscuring the middle 8 digits of your 16-digit card number) - A bank statement (issued within the last 3 months) accompanied by a payslip - A tax return document - A statement that shows regular income on your account. - Potential Inheritance or proof of ownership of potential capital so as we can determine a source of wealth - Anything else we could determine as a source of income e.g. P60, P45 In the event we require any of the above information from you, someone from Betgoodwin will contact you either via your registered email address or via your contact telephone number also registered with us. Details on how this information can then be sent to Betgoodwin will be made clear in these communications; and
The Management 13 Feb 25 13:30
You'd be fine with all of those - as long as you just deposit and lose.
Obviously if you wanted to make a withdrawal - you would experience massive issues! Laugh
What are you doing laughing ?
Ffs
You'd be fine with all of those - as long as you just deposit and lose.
Obviously if you wanted to make a withdrawal - you would experience massive issues! Laugh
What are you doing laughing ?
Ffs
I'm saying it's fking hilarious that a man masquerading as the Racing Post's Industry Editor is quite happy for his employer to advertise and endorse every cowboy outfit in the UK - knowing full well that they only exist to fleece losers and addicts - and that if you try to withdraw (even just your initial deposit plus a tenner) - they will pretend they think that you are a money-launderer or a terrorist and put you through hell. They will also pretend that the GC are making them do it!
I'm also laughing because he's saying (according to a survey conducted by people with a very vested interest) that one in ten (10%) of respondents have considered using a "Black Market" bookmaker - and he is worried about the impact on the levy and therefore on Racing.
Meanwhile a survey conducted by the very publication that employs him, found that 1 in 3 (33%) of respondents had encountered betting restrictions or account closures. Obviously this also has a worrying impact on the levy and therefore on Racing.
I'm laughing because i've lost count of the number of articles he has now written about the former (The evil "Black Market") - but a man that has lost four fingers, could count on one hand, the number of articles he has written about the latter (account restrictions and account closures).
I'm also laughing because he's saying (according to a survey conducted by people with a very vested interest) that one in ten (10%) of respondents have considered using a "Black Market" bookmaker - and he is worried about the impact on the levy and therefore on Racing.
Meanwhile a survey conducted by the very publication that employs him, found that 1 in 3 (33%) of respondents had encountered betting restrictions or account closures. Obviously this also has a worrying impact on the levy and therefore on Racing.
I'm laughing because i've lost count of the number of articles he has now written about the former (The evil "Black Market") - but a man that has lost four fingers, could count on one hand, the number of articles he has written about the latter (account restrictions and account closures).
Black market offer a better service actually take a bet like bookmakers used to do.
A more cynical observer than me might think that he doesn't give a toss about the levy or horse racing - but it does worry him that the poor old UK bookies are missing out on a few quid because the Asians are poaching their slots/casino addicts from them.
Can anyone give me details of these supposed black market or unlicensed bookmakers that the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities' (IFHA) claims must exist? Can the IFHA, which I thought was intended to promote standards within horse racing (not betting), explain how it can state unequivocally the number of "visits" to the "black" operators' sites ? The figure grew by 522% during a 3 year period?! If these figures are known so accurately the sites can't be very "black". This smacks of nothing but a con to persuade punters to use bookies who contribute to horeracing's finances. These contributions include especially the sponsored races. Ever dodgy new (supposed) legal bookmaker on being set up immediately sponsors some races in an attempt to prove their credibility when in essence they are thieves who do everything they can to prevent winning account holders from withdrawing winnings. For the benefit of these organisations (now dozens of them), there is no legislation which requires bookmakers to go the the "identity checks" including income tax returns, proof of income etc. It's all part of the con.
No, you are not cynical, Management, You just are too difficult to con. Definition of a cynic? A person who is never disappointed. As a founder member of the UOC (Universal Order of Cynics), I am delighted to welcome you to our (free) membership.
Anyone even thinking of venturing into the dirt must be simple……
bookies and their bought-and-paid-for MPs have lied about black market bookies for so long, they've convinced themselves they exist under every bed in the land.
well said black market bookies my bo....ks theres a few but they been there years 3p
Could one liken The Racing Post and the bookies as (Hamas), and The Gambling Commission as (Israelis) in this conflict of horseracing betting and Accountability Check? The former is a terrorist group, the latter a legit sovereign state.
Forgive me for being critical, but imo Mr Porteous "dunno hay from a bull's foot", or is making a decent fist of not knowing. I hope this is unhelpful.
Nebs, would you not get better value on your phone in the pub? If you want a bet on the tote or with a bookie use your phone without giving the pub landlord a few % commission.
It must be really frustrating for the UK bookmakers - investing all of their time, guile and cunning into identifying, profiling and grooming addicts - then they only get a 20 year run at rinsing them, before somebody else comes along and steals their ill gotten gains.
Bingo!
Bingo!
2025 and beyond is a time to stay away from these casino nutjobs guys.
Trident,The Racing Post can't see that for some reason.
Sorry to bang on! but.......
The real story is not the black-market bookies/casinos/crypto that the racing post publish. The real issue is the big corporations have woken up to the fact that there are new players in town and the grift is coming to an end.
The real story is not the black-market bookies/casinos/crypto that the racing post publish. The real issue is the big corporations have woken up to the fact that there are new players in town and the grift is coming to an end.
Feb 14, 2025 -- 8:42AM, second again wrote:
Trident,The Racing Post can't see that for some reason.
They have done it to themselves. Ive never seen sooo many casino slot offers on the Racing Post. Until I blocked them all!
They should not have racing in the title.
As forcast by H D many, many moons ago !
I was about when betting tax was 9/10% in the 70s & 80s, illegal gambling was rife !
Listen, men will always want to bet.... The Gambling Commission are destroying how racing will be financed... KYC is totally riduculous..... the G C are only interested in ''money laundering''.... if this current state of affairs continues... bye bye British Horse Racing !
I was about when betting tax was 9/10% in the 70s & 80s, illegal gambling was rife !
Listen, men will always want to bet.... The Gambling Commission are destroying how racing will be financed... KYC is totally riduculous..... the G C are only interested in ''money laundering''.... if this current state of affairs continues... bye bye British Horse Racing !
I've received more spam texts from dodgy casino operators lately
CLYDEBANK2914 Feb 25 12:18Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 13,869 | Blogger: CLYDEBANK29's blog
I've received more spam texts from dodgy casino operators lately
Name and shame - which ones was it - Korals, Hills or Skybet?
I've received more spam texts from dodgy casino operators lately
Name and shame - which ones was it - Korals, Hills or Skybet?
If you're looking to place a bet this weekend, Matchbook are offering new customers up to £100 in free bets.
How to claim £100 in free bets
To earn 5 x £10 free bets, simply sign up and bet £50 at minimum odds of 2.0. You must bet on at least 4 different events to qualify.
Additionally, you will receive all commission paid between registration and March 10 2025 back as free bets for Cheltenham 2025, up to the value of £50. 18+ T&Cs apply
CLAIM THIS OFFER
How to claim £100 in free bets
To earn 5 x £10 free bets, simply sign up and bet £50 at minimum odds of 2.0. You must bet on at least 4 different events to qualify.
Additionally, you will receive all commission paid between registration and March 10 2025 back as free bets for Cheltenham 2025, up to the value of £50. 18+ T&Cs apply
CLAIM THIS OFFER
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539