Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
Show More
I've not read the article nevertheless, a bet restriction is a clear indication the Gambling Commission is toothless and ineffectual. If there is a will to ban this the Gambling Commission would have done something punter positive about it a long time ago.
I've been hoping the present incumbent boss at the Gambling Commission is different, and bats for the recreational punters. It seems not (not yet anyway)!
I've been hoping the present incumbent boss at the Gambling Commission is different, and bats for the recreational punters. It seems not (not yet anyway)!
The GC should have its name changed to The Ante Gambling Commission and no amount of waffling from them justify their stance and how Bookmakers continue to run rings around them
The GC is run by Anti Gambling Zealots who have zero experience in Gambling
I suspect the “Baroness”, aka Ruth Davidson, is one of the prime movers in this anti-gambling campaign. Knows nothing about gambling, horse-racing or associated. Simply trying to justify her HOL synecure. Heaven help us all from do-gooders.
The Gambling Commission is an independent body funded by application and licence fees set by the Secretary Of State, approved by Parliament and paid by the gambling industry. These fees fund all gambling regulations except that for the National Lottery.
As such, the Gambling Commission is indirectly linked to the gambling industry. The past incumbent boss was "attached" to the gambling industry esp the bookies that pedalled fobt and run horseracing in the UK for their own interest.
The bookies also had one of their "own" as an incumbent boss ie Mr Nick Rust (a former associate at Ladbrokes) who allowed a much freer reign than most of his predecessors in the governing of horseracing UK.
Mr Nick Rust together with the former boss at the Gambling Commission whose name escaped me presently who resigned before he could be "replaced". These two characters exacerbated the decline of governance on the gambling industry leading to the now spiral decline of horseracing in the UK, and the proliferation of fobt which is the most destructive betting product ever introduced to gambling; fobt is akin to opium and highly addictive to players and smokers respectively.
As such, the Gambling Commission is indirectly linked to the gambling industry. The past incumbent boss was "attached" to the gambling industry esp the bookies that pedalled fobt and run horseracing in the UK for their own interest.
The bookies also had one of their "own" as an incumbent boss ie Mr Nick Rust (a former associate at Ladbrokes) who allowed a much freer reign than most of his predecessors in the governing of horseracing UK.
Mr Nick Rust together with the former boss at the Gambling Commission whose name escaped me presently who resigned before he could be "replaced". These two characters exacerbated the decline of governance on the gambling industry leading to the now spiral decline of horseracing in the UK, and the proliferation of fobt which is the most destructive betting product ever introduced to gambling; fobt is akin to opium and highly addictive to players and smokers respectively.
Thanks for posting Racing6699
It's fair to say they weren't any good at their job from the day they were formed, up until a few years ago.
But to say they are sh1t at a load of things that are outwith their remit (not their job) - is obviously pretty unfair and just demonstrates the general ignorance (amongst gamblers) as to what is their role.
If you want to complain about bookmakers closing/restricting accounts and only taking bets from people they have profiled as losers, the body that you can go to about it is..... oh, no, sorry, there isn't one - but it certainly isn't and never has been the GC.
It would be good if they could use this data to demonstrate that even before Affordability Checks came along, it was the "bookmakers" themselves that were the driving force behind the growth in the so-called "Black Market". Via that route, it's vaguely possible (but still probably unlikely) that you could see some sort of enforced action on account restrictions/closures.
It's fair to say they weren't any good at their job from the day they were formed, up until a few years ago.
But to say they are sh1t at a load of things that are outwith their remit (not their job) - is obviously pretty unfair and just demonstrates the general ignorance (amongst gamblers) as to what is their role.
If you want to complain about bookmakers closing/restricting accounts and only taking bets from people they have profiled as losers, the body that you can go to about it is..... oh, no, sorry, there isn't one - but it certainly isn't and never has been the GC.
It would be good if they could use this data to demonstrate that even before Affordability Checks came along, it was the "bookmakers" themselves that were the driving force behind the growth in the so-called "Black Market". Via that route, it's vaguely possible (but still probably unlikely) that you could see some sort of enforced action on account restrictions/closures.
Fobt isn’t a betting product, it is a betting shop product.
What chance do we have of educating the anti-gambling core when we don’t know the difference?
What chance do we have of educating the anti-gambling core when we don’t know the difference?
Better that the bookies restrict, than deny a payout. They are licensed, not dissimilar to publicans; and publicans have the right to deny anyone they choose, as are just about every other retailer. It is - your business then you get to choose how and to whom you provide it (without being discriminatory within the context of law).
......gambling operators are entitled to act in their commercial interests and manage liabilities. It is not within our regulatory remit to mandate how individual operators manage their commercial liabilities.
The remit needs changing then.
The remit needs changing then.
LH makes a valid point and a crucial one that the GC refuses to accept
If you want to complain about bookmakers closing/restricting accounts and only taking bets from people they have profiled as losers, the body that you can go to about it is
Minimum bet limits refer to the amount a punter can win, not how much can be staked or collected. Rules stipulate that the minimum bet size must be accepted by bookmakers on all fixed-odds bets.
For example, a domestic betting operator with a racing year turnover over $3 million, on a WA Trotting Club harness race, a win bet can be placed to the limit of $1000. This means that if the punter is backing a horse to win at odds of $5, the minimum bet the wagering operator must allow them to stake is $250. Bets less than $250 must also be accepted.
Stake: $250
Price: $5
Collect: $1250
Win: $1000
In WA, minimum bet limits only apply on bets placed from 9:00am for day meetings or from 2:00pm for night meetings on race day.
why has this ^^ not been introduced in the uk ??? bcos in the uk all these fkrs are in bed with each other.
Minimum bet limits refer to the amount a punter can win, not how much can be staked or collected. Rules stipulate that the minimum bet size must be accepted by bookmakers on all fixed-odds bets.
For example, a domestic betting operator with a racing year turnover over $3 million, on a WA Trotting Club harness race, a win bet can be placed to the limit of $1000. This means that if the punter is backing a horse to win at odds of $5, the minimum bet the wagering operator must allow them to stake is $250. Bets less than $250 must also be accepted.
Stake: $250
Price: $5
Collect: $1250
Win: $1000
In WA, minimum bet limits only apply on bets placed from 9:00am for day meetings or from 2:00pm for night meetings on race day.
why has this ^^ not been introduced in the uk ??? bcos in the uk all these fkrs are in bed with each other.
Depends on how much regulation you want in the economy and how much you want to encourage enterprisep and wealth
Publicans do not ban/restrict willy-nilly ie indiscriminately. For instance, if one is not under-aged, abusive, offensive, drunk, troublesome, etc, one will not be banned. Imagine the supermarkets are operating and practising the same business model as the bookies. They will be called to explain, and probably have their licence to trade rescinded and shut down, if they refuse.
Anyway the bookies in the UK are a law unto themselves ie they call the tune - they run the show and nobody can tell them to do otherwise.
Anyway the bookies in the UK are a law unto themselves ie they call the tune - they run the show and nobody can tell them to do otherwise.
in a nutshell they say 4% are restricted. I simply dont believe that data to be honest Although maybe they have simply re catergorised these people under AML or AC??
Has no-one read the report?
Extracts:-
From a total of 14,923,840 active customer accounts, operators reported 643,779 accounts restricted in some form – a rate of 4.31 per cent.
25.42 per cent of active customers are in profit vs. 46.78 per cent of restricted customers
72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers.
Extracts:-
From a total of 14,923,840 active customer accounts, operators reported 643,779 accounts restricted in some form – a rate of 4.31 per cent.
25.42 per cent of active customers are in profit vs. 46.78 per cent of restricted customers
72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers.
Report goes on to say the GC cannot help BUT:-
However, we do need to understand the role that commercial restrictions may be playing in:
- pushing customers to illegal gambling operators
- driving customer behaviours such as ‘multi-accounting’ which undermine wider controls designed to prevent crime, protect consumers and identify integrity threats.
However, we do need to understand the role that commercial restrictions may be playing in:
- pushing customers to illegal gambling operators
- driving customer behaviours such as ‘multi-accounting’ which undermine wider controls designed to prevent crime, protect consumers and identify integrity threats.
I'd guess the "flaw" in their data (amongst other things) is this:
For the purposes of our data request, an 'active account' is defined as an account which made a minimum of 1 bet in any market in the 12-month period between 01/01/2024 and 31/12/2024 inclusive (including accounts closed in that period or since)
Most of the closed/restricted accounts were probably closed/restricted well before 2024 and are long gone (probably to the Black Market).
In a nutshell, they're about 20 years too late!
For the purposes of our data request, an 'active account' is defined as an account which made a minimum of 1 bet in any market in the 12-month period between 01/01/2024 and 31/12/2024 inclusive (including accounts closed in that period or since)
Most of the closed/restricted accounts were probably closed/restricted well before 2024 and are long gone (probably to the Black Market).
In a nutshell, they're about 20 years too late!
72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers.
Extraordinary. Most punters who get restricted are losing.
Extraordinary. Most punters who get restricted are losing.
If they wanted to understand a bit about the dynamics/drivers of the Black Market
1) Get the CEO's to outline their views on the (dastardly) Black Market - let them have their rant about how evil it is - and then ask them to outline in what way that differs from how they were operating themselves between about 2000 and 2018.
2) Get the data for closed/restricted accounts going back to at least 2010 - ask the CEO's where they think those customers are betting now.
1) Get the CEO's to outline their views on the (dastardly) Black Market - let them have their rant about how evil it is - and then ask them to outline in what way that differs from how they were operating themselves between about 2000 and 2018.
2) Get the data for closed/restricted accounts going back to at least 2010 - ask the CEO's where they think those customers are betting now.
screaming from beneaththewaves23 Jul 25 18:52Joined: 30 Jan 05 | Topic/replies: 15,604 | Blogger: screaming from beneaththewaves's blog
Extraordinary. Most punters who get restricted are losing.
Welcome to the world of "gaming". When you've got millions of degenerate addicts playing on products that can't ever possibly give them a positive expectation of winning - why would you want to be messing about with small time losers betting on real events. In a nutshell, you're not going to lose enough, quickly enough for us - off to the Black Market with you!
Extraordinary. Most punters who get restricted are losing.
Welcome to the world of "gaming". When you've got millions of degenerate addicts playing on products that can't ever possibly give them a positive expectation of winning - why would you want to be messing about with small time losers betting on real events. In a nutshell, you're not going to lose enough, quickly enough for us - off to the Black Market with you!
What Black Market,The Management?
Andrew Rhodes said it was unimportant and insignificant until it was proved that he was talking from his chuffer.
The King Canute's of today.
Andrew Rhodes said it was unimportant and insignificant until it was proved that he was talking from his chuffer.
The King Canute's of today.
I don't remember any of the on-line CEO's complaining about a "black market" prior to the White Paper - so where did they think all the accounts they had restricted/closed long before the White Paper were going to go to have a bet?
They were perfectly happy for people they didn't want to take bets from, to go there. Now (since the White Paper) there is a chance that some of their degenerate addicts might get lured there, it's a different story.
They were perfectly happy for people they didn't want to take bets from, to go there. Now (since the White Paper) there is a chance that some of their degenerate addicts might get lured there, it's a different story.
Australia has a model where the same Books who will not bet with "non profitables" are forced to Lay any punter to lose a certain amount.
Naturally,this is beyond the wisdom of our Regulators to enforce
Naturally,this is beyond the wisdom of our Regulators to enforce
The Racing Post has caught up with the forum.
Staking restrictions and account closures - inside the Gambling Commission's latest betting data
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/staking-restrictions-and-account-closures-inside-the-gambling-commissions-latest-betting-data-a5WCz2R9nPyW/
Staking restrictions and account closures - inside the Gambling Commission's latest betting data
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/staking-restrictions-and-account-closures-inside-the-gambling-commissions-latest-betting-data-a5WCz2R9nPyW/
uptheirons23 Jul 25 19:22Joined: 01 Apr 25 | Topic/replies: 2,150 | Blogger: uptheirons's blog
Australia has a model where the same Books who will not bet with "non profitables" are forced to Lay any punter to lose a certain amount.
Naturally,this is beyond the wisdom of our Regulators to enforce
It does - and that sounds like what we need over here - but you are assuming (wrongly) that the regulator (The Gambling Commission) has some sort of role as a consumer champion (or punters pal). It doesn't.
Not sure why you are so down on Mr Rhodes in particular tbh. His arrival at the GC roughly coincided with them finally doing what they are supposed to be doing (after about 20 years of nobody bothering), enforcing the 2005 Gambling Act.
Australia has a model where the same Books who will not bet with "non profitables" are forced to Lay any punter to lose a certain amount.
Naturally,this is beyond the wisdom of our Regulators to enforce
It does - and that sounds like what we need over here - but you are assuming (wrongly) that the regulator (The Gambling Commission) has some sort of role as a consumer champion (or punters pal). It doesn't.
Not sure why you are so down on Mr Rhodes in particular tbh. His arrival at the GC roughly coincided with them finally doing what they are supposed to be doing (after about 20 years of nobody bothering), enforcing the 2005 Gambling Act.
Possibly that he has been a repetitive lying prick,The Management
Maybe instead of continually printing template of letters to MP's to Save The Slots, you could petition the Racing Post to come up with a template letter to MP's either asking for gamblers to have a Govt appointed body to work on their behalf or to extend the remit of the GC to incorporate that role.
Realistically there's more chance of me getting a date with Jule Brand!
But you are wasting your time blaming the GC for not doing something that isn't in their remit. Especially when there are so many other people you could rightfully blame.
Realistically there's more chance of me getting a date with Jule Brand!
But you are wasting your time blaming the GC for not doing something that isn't in their remit. Especially when there are so many other people you could rightfully blame.
Personally, I'd have everybody that worked there prior to his arrival, prosecuted. But that still wouldn't really change anything, 20 years of on-line bookmakers relentlessly (and illegally) pushing their "wheels & reels" has brought us to where we are today.
The Petition with over a 100,000 complaining of the utter unfairness of Affordability Checks on punters was ignored by the GC.
To summarise,we are cattle trucked as nobody outside the racing industry gives a toss
To summarise,we are cattle trucked as nobody outside the racing industry gives a toss
100,000+ racing fans conned by the big on-line "bookmakers" into signing their petition to Save Their Slots.
The Racing Post making sure it was the only game in town. You want to object to betting on racing being better subject to tighter regulated? - You can't, all gambling is the same - so just sign this one! Save The Slots.
The Racing Post making sure it was the only game in town. You want to object to betting on racing being better subject to tighter regulated? - You can't, all gambling is the same - so just sign this one! Save The Slots.
My MP didn't act on my email regarding the Affordability Checks being against my human rights either
I gotta go - Jule says she's knocking off at about 10pm.
Didn't have the heart to tell her it will be more like 11pm (imo).
Didn't have the heart to tell her it will be more like 11pm (imo).
Can’t see the MP being very interested in receiving letters saying ‘please don’t stop me gambling’
My complaint was about being able to purchase a new vehicle(every three years in my case)and purchase Stocks and Shares without knowing whether I could afford them other than having the funds there,Captain but, not being able to have a bet despite proving that I had sufficient funds,Captain
High street bookies don’t mind taking bets though uptheirons?
I used to be able to bet in my local Hills Shop and only bet in Graded races with decent stakes accepted by cash or debit card for some time.
When I went in for a bet there was a letter awaiting me asking for;12 months unredacted Bank Statements for 12 months and a list of my current assets.
I asked if I accepted these ludicrous conditions that I would be accomodated he said that he could not.
Needless to say,I declined their offer.
You cannot get a copper on the horses in the Shops but can you do your balls on the FOBT's,Captain.
When I went in for a bet there was a letter awaiting me asking for;12 months unredacted Bank Statements for 12 months and a list of my current assets.
I asked if I accepted these ludicrous conditions that I would be accomodated he said that he could not.
Needless to say,I declined their offer.
You cannot get a copper on the horses in the Shops but can you do your balls on the FOBT's,Captain.
Right UTI, I mostly use the machines (not the FOBT’s). Don’t really like dealing with some of the ars’s behind the counters.
Without wishing to denigrate anybody,the £20 punters can get on,others cannot.
So,when you hear Bookies mouth pieces state,"we have seen good money for horse A".you know it's cobblers
So,when you hear Bookies mouth pieces state,"we have seen good money for horse A".you know it's cobblers
TBH, I’ve given up on the nags, finally came to my senses,game is fuct.
uptheirons -- "Without wishing to denigrate anybody,the £20 punters can get on,others cannot."
Er, no. Lots of small punters have been blocked, some because they are shrewd, usually (as Corals acknowledged) collateral damage because they unknowingly land on the same selections as the sharks and their putter-onners who are the intended targets.
Er, no. Lots of small punters have been blocked, some because they are shrewd, usually (as Corals acknowledged) collateral damage because they unknowingly land on the same selections as the sharks and their putter-onners who are the intended targets.
Licensing objectives
The Gambling Act 2005 (opens in new tab) sets out the following licensing objectives.
These are:
preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
protecting children and other vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
We are responsible for making sure all licensing applications meet these objectives.
The Gambling Commission is clearly not fulfilling their objectives.
The Gambling Act 2005 (opens in new tab) sets out the following licensing objectives.
These are:
preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
protecting children and other vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
We are responsible for making sure all licensing applications meet these objectives.
The Gambling Commission is clearly not fulfilling their objectives.
"The figures here are extremely revealing, with almost 60 per cent of accounts restricted to ten per cent or less of the desired stake." 
Just imagine if they had actually got hold of some meaningful instead of the data they asked for!
Would probably reveal that the so-called licensed and regulated bookmakers, should have been charging the so-called Black Market bookmakers a commission, for all the customers that they were sending to them.
Would probably reveal that the so-called licensed and regulated bookmakers, should have been charging the so-called Black Market bookmakers a commission, for all the customers that they were sending to them.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539