Gambling Commission Announcement & Government consultation

News, chat and debate about the Betfair betting exchange.
User avatar
wearthefoxhat
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am

Saw this on Twitter from a Unibet customer.


source of funds.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
jamesedwards
Posts: 2234
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm

wearthefoxhat wrote:
Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:25 pm
Saw this on Twitter from a Unibet customer.



source of funds.png
Any bookies who ask me for this can whistle. Even if Betfair require this I would have to consider carefully whether to acquiesce.
User avatar
wearthefoxhat
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am

jamesedwards wrote:
Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:38 pm
wearthefoxhat wrote:
Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:25 pm
Saw this on Twitter from a Unibet customer.



source of funds.png
Any bookies who ask me for this can whistle. Even if Betfair require this I would have to consider carefully whether to acquiesce.
I agree with that too.
sniffer66
Posts: 1666
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 8:37 am

wearthefoxhat wrote:
Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:48 pm
jamesedwards wrote:
Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:38 pm
wearthefoxhat wrote:
Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:25 pm
Saw this on Twitter from a Unibet customer.



source of funds.png
Any bookies who ask me for this can whistle. Even if Betfair require this I would have to consider carefully whether to acquiesce.
I agree with that too.
Same. They can do one if that's the level of intrusion they are going for.
WisdomOfCrowds
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:55 pm

I am approaching 64. I’ve been betting safely all my life. The only money I have ever borrowed was through a mortgage when I bought my first house. That was paid off in 1991.

I do not have a credit card so I presume my credit rating would be terrible if a bookmaker did a ‘soft check’ on me. It’s strange how never needing credit works against you. It’s even more strange that it can be held against you when you’re not even asking for or needing credit!

None of us want to see anyone harmed by gambling but in a free country we should all be allowed to spend our money in whatever way we choose.

The Gambling Commission has overstepped the mark by putting bookmakers under pressure to do checks as they fear more stringent regulation would follow if they didn’t. This has brainwashed us all into thinking milder forms of checks are ‘okay’.

They are not okay!

I would prefer to see the Gambling Commission sticking up for punters by having rules that state winning accounts cannot be limited or closed by bookmakers – but no, they see their remit as one to persecute us all with their actions.
The way forward in a free country is to educate, not regulate.

What happens if someone plans a week in Cheltenham for the festival and loses a hundred quid on their first bet? Will they be banned from betting until the start of the next month or until they’ve proved income to the on-course layers satisfying them they’re able to afford to lose more?

Will all betting shop/on course transactions have to be done on debit cards so the necessary checks can be made? Will cash on the course be a thing of the past?

What about the purchase of lottery tickets/scratch cards at the local supermarket? How will that be handled?

It will be a dark, dark day if this legislation gets through parliament.

The knock-on consequence will be that the racing industry will be severely affected with wide sweeping job losses, probably resulting in more hardship than that caused to the 0.5% of bettors who have a gambling problem.
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23477
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

WisdomOfCrowds wrote:
Sat Jul 16, 2022 9:43 pm
What happens if someone plans a week in Cheltenham for the festival and loses a hundred quid on their first bet? Will they be banned from betting until the start of the next month or until they’ve proved income to the on-course layers satisfying them they’re able to afford to lose more?

Will all betting shop/on course transactions have to be done on debit cards so the necessary checks can be made? Will cash on the course be a thing of the past?

What about the purchase of lottery tickets/scratch cards at the local supermarket? How will that be handled?
They are all very good points. Some of those losers who make me wait to purchase cigarettes because they're grabbing every lottery ticket in sight are probably also complaining that they have to choose between heating, eating or feeding the dog. They won't include lottery tickets among the choices.
User avatar
jamesedwards
Posts: 2234
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm

WisdomOfCrowds wrote:
Sat Jul 16, 2022 9:43 pm

What about the purchase of lottery tickets/scratch cards at the local supermarket? How will that be handled?
The UK National Lottery returns only about 50% of total stake making it far and away the worst return in the whole gambling industry. And yet it is the one with the least customer protection. You can bet your ass they won't be demanding direct access to your bank account.
User avatar
Dublin_Flyer
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:39 am

Back in the early/mid 80's an uncle of mine was doing then usual Irish thing, going to the UK and bricklaying. Made savage money and sent it home to the wife and kiddies. Got home eventually and the lights were off, thought the missus and kids were at the grandparents or something.
Missus and kids were there alright, just had no money to pay the electricity bill......she'd been spending every penny he sent home on fuckin scratch cards!

Absolutely nothing in the projected guidelines would prevent something similar happening again. If someone is addicted to gambling, they might have their Ladbrokes or PaddyPower account locked out, but nothing will stop them going to the local newsagent and spending 200 quid on scratchcards, or the next newsagent down the road because it's "luckier" and another 200 quid there.

Affordability checks are a load of shite, they're not addressing the addiction, just pushing it elsewhere.

If your granny goes to the bingo 3 nights a week and spends a tenner a night, that's 120 a month or over 1400 a year. Now would your granny be an addicted gambler, or just paying for her social scene?
Archery1969
Posts: 3193
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
Location: Newport

I went to the bookie shop today, not to gamble but to see a friend. ;)

Sat down to watch some greyhound racing. Some bloke was swearing at a machine and also swearing at someone on his mobile phone.

Over less than 20 minutes he must of put over £200 in the machine.

Door flew open, a woman came in, smacked him in the back of the head and was using some pretty foul language. She grabbed his phone and threw it at the machine, then left. He started crying and obviously in a very bad way.

He then walked over to the desk and asked if he could get £300 on credit.

I left, so don’t know what happened but how would this proposed legislation stop and help him ?
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

90 days doesn't make sense and 2 grand doesn't make sense.

Are we going to get a run-up at this 90 days because if not and you start with a couple of losing days you've had it?
But if you do have a run-up then some people could be 6 figures down by the end of the 90.....exacerbated by having doubles before they call last orders?

As Dublin_Flyer said it won't stop addiction it will just means addicts don't get identified because they'll bet on something else, it's just like banning abortions is actually just banning safe ones.

This is all because someones wants to say "Got gambling done" on election leaflets, but like everything else they've alledgedly "done" it's a shambles.
LordBobbin
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2022 5:17 pm

Presumably it would be over a rolling 90-day period rather than stopping and starting on any particular day. So as long as you had fared okay in the previous 89 days, one mildly bad day shouldn't send the entire amount into a big minus.

But of course, that would depend on your betting style. A 90-day period might be okay (generally) for those who lay favourites, but backers of long odds could easily have a long run that leaves them prey to the 90-day losses rule. Ditto somebody who only bets a few days in the year, but who plunges quite significantly on most of those days.

The 90-day rolling period is bad enough, but it might be more draconian than that. £125 over a 30-day period would catch most of us at some point, while £1,000 over a 24-hour period would effectively mean that most people couldn't play for more than a few hundred unless they had really big salaries. I'm not sure how the UK gambling industry could stay afloat if that latter rule was enforced, but if they're hoping to make up money by the expansion of the US market than I wouldn't necessarily rule it out.

In any case, it's our money. I don't approve of people betting with money on credit, but as long as we have the cash, why shouldn't we spend it as we wish. It makes me furious to think that I can run a system whereby I never risk more than 2.5% of my bank on any bet, and only make a few bets each week, and yet I might be banned from playing more than a few quid just because a handful of people can't control themselves. And as we've said, most of those with a real compulsion will still find ways to throw away their money, whether that's through black-market bookies (most of whom will bleed the addicts for every last drop) or through high-street FOBTs, scratch-cards etc.
User avatar
ANGELS15
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:57 am

I was in a bookies today to watch my back to lays. A punter who I had never seen before came in. A few minutes later he struck up a conversation with me because he could tell from the way I was using my mobile that I was a Betfair user. He told me that recently he had seen a punter win £2000 on a fruit machine and the bookies refused to pay him out unless he consented to a proof of income check the punter refused. He has continued to refuse and the winnings havn't been paid out to date. So it looks very much like this will be used and abused by operators.
User avatar
ANGELS15
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:57 am

I've thought of a few more points which could be relevant.

At first glance a £2000 loss over 90 days may not sound so bad for a trader who is consistently profitable. However when you think about it £2000 over 90 days may not be as generous as it appears. As I see it that equates to a daily loss of £22.22. Even 10p yankee and 50p punters easily spend that daily often with little or no return.

Many people play Bingo is that going to be affected by these legislations? Typically a set of paper Bingo books for an evening session may come to around £12. If they buy the books on an electronic tablet then that easily doubles as you get more books. However many people also play table bingo which quickly adds another £10 or so. In addition some of the customers play the fruit machines so are easily going to be spending over £50 daily. Not to mention this is typical of an evening session, many of them do an afternoon session as well.

So is it ok for a Bingo customer to spend/lose £22+ day but not someone who bets on racing? Or will these rules apply to Bingo? If so I find it hard to believe they'll have many customers left.

There is another disturbing aspect to all this. Do the permitted losses apply across all the accounts a customer holds?

Are Betfair going to say 'we're aware you have an account with Paddy Power and Sky Bet and you've already lost £500 with each of them this month so we have to limit you on Betfair?

Even more disturbing are customers going to have to declare all of their exchange/bookmaker accounts to each operator or are the limits going to apply seperately to each account?
verance
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:59 am

Dublin_Flyer wrote:
Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:36 am
Back in the early/mid 80's an uncle of mine was doing then usual Irish thing, going to the UK and bricklaying. Made savage money and sent it home to the wife and kiddies. Got home eventually and the lights were off, thought the missus and kids were at the grandparents or something.
Missus and kids were there alright, just had no money to pay the electricity bill......she'd been spending every penny he sent home on fuckin scratch cards!

Absolutely nothing in the projected guidelines would prevent something similar happening again. If someone is addicted to gambling, they might have their Ladbrokes or PaddyPower account locked out, but nothing will stop them going to the local newsagent and spending 200 quid on scratchcards, or the next newsagent down the road because it's "luckier" and another 200 quid there.

Affordability checks are a load of shite, they're not addressing the addiction, just pushing it elsewhere.

If your granny goes to the bingo 3 nights a week and spends a tenner a night, that's 120 a month or over 1400 a year. Now would your granny be an addicted gambler, or just paying for her social scene?
There's been a 10 scrathcard limit per shop for the last few years.

I get that people who are already addicted will probably find a way but it should in theory help limit new addicts?
RoyJay
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2022 8:16 am

Just to add my experience and concerns to those already mentioned above.

What quite a few people don’t already realise, although it is coming up a bit more often now, is that a lot of firms, under threats of fines from the out of control gambling commission, have already started implementing these ridiculous intrusive , possibly even illegal checks, before any law has even been passed.

Just the other week, a UK based firm, who I have bet with for over twenty years, responsibly I should add, decided to close my account.

There was no appeal, no right to reply, no consultation on my current living circumstances, my outgoings, my lifestyle, my dependants, nothing. I received a patronising/humiliating phone call from an untrained lady who I have never met. Despite sending in evidence of savings bonds, bank statements etc showing I clearly had funds, and was not in debt, or betting on credit or with loans, I was told that my account would be closed. I was told my current savings were in no way sufficient to carry on with my current gambling. ( my turnover was being used as my spend. Showing a complete lack of understanding between the difference of the two.)

Despite my pleas, and despite my attempts to escalate this to head office, my account was closed. The untrained lady insisted it was for my own good, and she referred me to gamcare. It was a horrific experience. And this was me agreeing to comply too.

Most people, quite rightly in my opinion, worried about sharing highly sensitive data, will not comply.


Affordability checks are completely the wrong way to go about this. The anti gambling lobby have been told time and time again that they will just drive business to the unregulated black/grey markets.

The anti gambling lobby are so entrenched in their own little echo chambers that they refuse to acknowledge that the black market even exists. They think it is something that pro gambling people have made up. They think it is a myth being peddled to try and keep the status quo.

The black market DOES exist. I know this because every morning, the first thing I have to do is delete the 5 to 10 emails I get off dodgy casino firms, that I’ve never heard of, providing a link, offering me a sign up bonus, free spins etc etc.

The reason they email me, is because somewhere along the line, a gambling company I use, has either sold, lost, or had stolen my sensitive data, which has then got sold, and eventually made it into the hands of an unscrupulous operator, who has decided to target me with these daily offers to come and play on their UNREGULATED casino. And that’s not to mention crypto, crypto bookmakers, crypto casinos, private layers , the list goes on.

Whilst the black market might not yet be currently thriving, and not have that many users, to suggest it doesn’t exist is embarrassing, and all this legislation will do is ensure it starts to thrive. And people at risk, will be even more at risk, and they will be targeted. Without doubt they will be targeted.

If people are serious about actually stopping harm, and not just pushing it out of sight, they need to start listening to people who understand gambling. Not just to the campaigners who all have their own agendas, and are not looking at the problem in a sensible way.

The FOBT campaigners were warned repeatedly that all they would do is drive the problem online, where people can play 24/7, and do even more damage. And now that has come to fruition, the same people still think they know best, and are now, rather ironically, trying to push problem gamblers back to the FOBTs, the so called “ crack cocaine of gambling”.

At no point has there been any punter consultation on this. Nobody is sticking up for the consumer, nobody has listened to the punter. In the call for evidence, seemingly all punter evidence has been ignored.

The other problem with the checks is that once triggered, they are impossible to pass. Nobody can get a satisfactory outcome, everyone seems to face some sort of unworkable restriction, again, designed only to make them either stop gambling altogether, or seek an alternative place to bet, most likely unregulated, where they can get a proper bet on.

Nobody knows what the rules are. Credit checks are pointless as they punish people who have never had any credit or debt, they are no longer able to bet. The only people who will be able to pass affordability checks, and still be able to bet in size, will be high earners, people with large salaries, with lots of disposable income, people like footballers, people like Paul Merson, what could possibly go wrong with that policy?!

People need educating. It is the advertising that needs to stop. Right from the start the advertising has been a disgrace. It makes gambling look easy. It makes it look as if everybody is winning. The Ladbrokes life, the bingo communities, everybody just gambling away and winning. That’s why we are in this mess. Gambling adverts need banning like cigarettes .I have no problem with the sponsorship, but the advertising is highly misleading and dangerous, and that’s where the campaigners should be concentrating their efforts, rather than affordability which will do nothing but push the problem elsewhere.

The suicide argument is obviously very difficult to argue against, and it must be absolutely heart breaking for anybody to lose somebody close to them. Though to blame it exclusively on the gambling is unfair. In a lot of cases the gambling is the symptom, not the cause. Excessive and reckless gambling is usually a distraction technique, it’s escapism. It can manifest in gambling, though it can manifest in many other behaviours too. Drinking, drugs, excessive internet use, excessive social media etc , again the list goes on. In alot of the cases, gambling will have been the symptom, not the cause. There are also many reasons why somebody may, sadly, decide to take their own lives. Heartbreak, depression, PTSD, losing somebody close to them, feeling inadequate, seeing how everybody else on Instagram has a much better life than them. If one death from a tenuous link to gambling really is too many, then there are a lot of other things you have to start banning too.

And whilst losing all your money is without doubt an incredibly dark place to be, and I can sort of see how people get to that point where they feel they have no choice, but you don’t actually have to kill yourself, it’s just gambling, it’s not squid game.

People need educating about the dangers. Banning people and closing their accounts is not the way. If somebody is on a downward spiral and wants to self destruct they will find a way. I know, I’ve been there. When you are hell bent on self destruction, you will do it, by whatever means possible. Banning gambling for people who bet responsibly is not the answer, educating the people that dont, is.


The whole thing has become a complete circus. The gambling commission is not fit for purpose and needs disbanding not empowering. An independent regulatory body, that works in the interest of both punters and bookmakers needs setting up.

The anti gambling campaigners need to take their fingers out of their ears and start listening to people beyond their echo chamber and grieving families, otherwise the misery is just going to continue, lives will continue up to be lost, and nothing will be resolved. If they get their way, then everybody loses.

Allowing Carolyn Harris MP to decide the rules on gambling reform is akin to allowing me to decide what the rules are on the menopause. Women will be allowed up to six hot flushes over a rolling 90 day period. If they go over that limit they must submit all their medical records, savings bonds, wage slips, passport and a photo of themselves to some random untrained working from home bloke, who will then decide whether or not they are actually going through the menopause, and if decides they are not, then they have to stop!

They also have to stop all the double standards. The daily mail, who have ran countless anti gambling stories, also think it seems fit to accompany those clickbait articles with adverts for gambling sites, that is just bizarre! The guardian , the most outspoken of all the papers on this, has its own “conservative leader odds tracker” , where they update readers on the latest betting odds for the conservatives leadership race, and of course give opinions and let readers know where the odds can be found. Completely normalising betting. Even Polly Toynbee uses her guardian column to shill for Star Sports!

Matt Zarb is so ill informed that he is the only person on the internet to ever lose a gambling related argument to Carn Barry. Matt is so thick that he makes Carn look statesmanlike! Rob Davies is just a pure Twitter journalist. Everything he knows about gambling he has learnt from Twitter, which is why he looks completely out of his depth and embarrasses himself each time he tries to speak on the subject. Both of the above have an agenda too, both are in some way earning out of this, and using it to raise their own profiles, again.

They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it and dictate unchallenged. Nobody is challenging them and their ridiculous policies. The big firms are not interested. They seem to be rubbing their hands at the chance to get hold of more customer data, and as mentioned above, with one eye on what’s happening in the U.S they probably don’t give a shit about the uk market. They will have bigger American fish to fry. They will all survive. Uk horse racing won’t though, the levy is already under extreme pressure, punters already getting fed up, this will be final nail in the coffin for British racing if it goes through.


The whole thing is a complete mess and needs ripping up and starting again, and this time they need to listen to the consumers. The punters need a voice. My money, my choice.
Last edited by RoyJay on Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Betfair exchange”