Paddy Power / Betfair / Flutter to introduce loss limits for young 'gamblers'

[Trader Pat]

I am under the impression the ban applies to bookies but not the exchanges ?
How else could one perform a trade with £500
Stakes?

I'd imagine it will apply across the board.

Will effectively mean if you're under 25 you won't be able to have a liability of >£500.

So one can only incur a net loss of £500 a month.. meaning everytime you loose , then you get less money available for the next trade or is it to mean you can still incur losses so long as your account is showing a positive lifetime profit and they will only limit you if your losses exceeds your gains by more than £500 .
The problem with flutter as a company ,it has exchanges and bookies under the same banner. This makes it hard to separate the two .
And reading from the news article you wouldn’t immediately know which component of the businesses model is affected. Not unless they choose to shed a light on it .

I'm sure it will work the same way that a loss limit does, I don't think lifetime P&L will come into it.

[goat68]

In my match betting time I could easily lose >£500 to the exchange or bookie, typically in one weekend of B365 2ups !

[The Silk Run]

In my match betting time I could easily lose >£500 to the exchange or bookie, typically in one weekend of B365 2ups !

We know you have history G

[decomez6]

I'd imagine it will apply across the board.

Will effectively mean if you're under 25 you won't be able to have a liability of >£500.

So one can only incur a net loss of £500 a month.. meaning everytime you loose , then you get less money available for the next trade or is it to mean you can still incur losses so long as your account is showing a positive lifetime profit and they will only limit you if your losses exceeds your gains by more than £500 .
The problem with flutter as a company ,it has exchanges and bookies under the same banner. This makes it hard to separate the two .
And reading from the news article you wouldn’t immediately know which component of the businesses model is affected. Not unless they choose to shed a light on it .

I'm sure it will work the same way that a loss limit does, I don't think lifetime P&L will come into it.

Looks very similar to a self imposed economic sabotage.. in short they are Brexiting themselves
Some of the political markets E.g the billions generating US presidential elections took long to settle and one will only be allowed to stake a maximum of £500 when backing and only allowed to bet more once the bet has been settled .
Brilliant.

[Trader Pat]

Looks very similar to a self imposed economic sabotage..

Can't say I see the logic to this at all. It would be very straightforward to identify the real problem gamblers and leave everyone else alone.

The only way it makes sense is if Flutter are doing it just to be seen to be doing something re problem gambling in the run up to the review.

If they keep this policy after the review they're just doing damage to the exchange model long term.

[jamesedwards]

Looks very similar to a self imposed economic sabotage..

Can't say I see the logic to this at all. It would be very straightforward to identify the real problem gamblers and leave everyone else alone.

The only way it makes sense is if Flutter are doing it just to be seen to be doing something re problem gambling in the run up to the review.

If they keep this policy after the review they're just doing damage to the exchange model long term.

This really is starting to feel like a death of 1000 cuts for the Exchange.

When is the review scheduled? Thought it was this year but seen nothing yet.

[Trader Pat]

This really is starting to feel like a death of 1000 cuts for the Exchange.

Unfortunately I'd go along with that.

When is the review scheduled? Thought it was this year but seen nothing yet.

I think it's already happened but there won't be a decision made until later this year.

[ANGELS15]

It just occurred to me, further to my earlier statement that there probably weren't that many 18 - 25 exchange users - I forgot about struggling students using match betting trying to make a few honest quid to help get themselves through uni. This will be a kick in the teeth to them.

Some people call me cynical but it always seems that whenever you try to improve yourself some fucker in authority somewhere pulls the rug from under you.

[Trader Pat]

It just occurred to me, further to my earlier statement that there probably weren't that many 18 - 25 exchange users - I forgot about struggling students using match betting trying to make a few honest quid to help get themselves through uni. This will be a kick in the teeth to them.

Some people call me cynical but it always seems that whenever you try to improve yourself some fucker in authority somewhere pulls the rug from under you.

In this case I think Betfair are pulling the rug out from under themselves.

I might be in the minority but I think cynicism is a good quality for a trader to have

[napshnap]

I mistook young gamblers for underage gamblers.
?
It really is incredible. You can legally have sex when you're 16, vote, smoke, drive and drink alcohol when you're 18, or is it 17 for driving? A young lottery winner isn't allowed to gamble more than £500 but somebody with £500 to his name is!

Don't forget that young ones can also "gamble" their money through crappy "financial trading apps", Derek, and nobody gives a sh*t about it!
They rerouting "vulnerable/stupid" money flow to financial markets, it's so obvious.
Why bother with some Premier League footy match if you can "speculate" on Tesla shares or take a part in another "to the moon" gamble?

[aperson]

This is getting more and more worrying. Fortunately over 25 now, but wasn't when I started, would've completely changed my life direction if they'd introduced this a few years back. If they introduced this crap on all age groups I'd be fucked. My liability at any point in time is massively higher than I'm ever going to lose, as I'm sure is the case with many other's. It's like the staff at BF don't understand how their own product functions.

[aperson]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... month.html

At least this says you will be allowed to lose more if you go through affordability checks. Hopefully they are willing to accept savings and a history of profiting on Betfair as evidence of this.

"Company sources added that internal research found under-25s had not developed a full understanding, making more stringent protections necessary."

I hate this attitude. It's essentially just ageism. There are plenty of 20 year olds out there that are far smarter than people in their 50's. It seems like a weirdly socially acceptable form of discrimination to just put down people younger than you, even if they have a first from Oxford and you stack shelves in Tesco.

[wearthefoxhat]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... month.html

At least this says you will be allowed to lose more if you go through affordability checks. Hopefully they are willing to accept savings and a history of profiting on Betfair as evidence of this.

"Company sources added that internal research found under-25s had not developed a full understanding, making more stringent protections necessary."

I hate this attitude. It's essentially just ageism. There are plenty of 20 year olds out there that are far smarter than people in their 50's. It seems like a weirdly socially acceptable form of discrimination to just put down people younger than you, even if they have a first from Oxford and you stack shelves in Tesco.

I think the 25 year old figure comes from a more scientific reason.

U25brain.png

With risk and decision making, they may not be cognitively efficient.

[aperson]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... month.html

At least this says you will be allowed to lose more if you go through affordability checks. Hopefully they are willing to accept savings and a history of profiting on Betfair as evidence of this.

"Company sources added that internal research found under-25s had not developed a full understanding, making more stringent protections necessary."

I hate this attitude. It's essentially just ageism. There are plenty of 20 year olds out there that are far smarter than people in their 50's. It seems like a weirdly socially acceptable form of discrimination to just put down people younger than you, even if they have a first from Oxford and you stack shelves in Tesco.

I think the 25 year old figure comes from a more scientific reason.

U25brain.png

With risk and decision making, they may not be cognitively efficient.

I take your point, and there's no doubt that I've "grown up" a bit since I was that age as I'm sure we all do but it's still a generalisation. I was doing this in my early 20's and never struggled, (or at least didn't struggle any more than I do now), with the mental side of this.

[andy28]

This made me laugh in that article

Henrietta Bowden-Jones, the NHS’s top gambling addiction expert, said: ‘Capping losses for under-25s at £500 a month should not be applauded.

'Even £100-a-month losses would be disastrous. Self-regulation by industry does not work and this is a clear example.’

How many people in the UK spend more than 100 pound on coffee a month! So what's next a cap on those addicted to coffee of 20 pound?

But what stops the under 25's going to the track and betting? Going to a betting shop to place bets? Getting older family/friends to open accounts? This does nothing for the problem gambler that really does need help except to drive them under ground and into illegal/dodgey operations. It's like letting an alcoholic have 5 pints a night and telling him to go home and sleep it off, that's the last thing he is going to do he will find somewhere to continue