Betfair Monthly Limit Email Received Today

[ShaunWhite]

You can always 'park it' as Peter does, offering odds of 1.01 for Spurs to win the Premier League

BRILLIANT!

This is why exposure re-use is so enticing.

[ShaunWhite]

Are the gambling commission banning or severely restricting gambling advertising and sports sponsorship?

Or is it that you can't advertise tobacco but you're allowed to smoke, and you can advertise gambling but you're not allowed to do it?

... and can I gamble if I call it a 'work event'?

[MattP]

For those who make their primary income from trading (betting) does the Gambling Commission recognise and allow flexibility for this?

I thought I read a while ago that previous winings do not constitute proof of income/affordability?

The deposit limit does seem to be counterintuitive as it discourages withdrawal and even promotes loading up ahead of major events.

[RoyJay]

For those who make their primary income from trading (betting) does the Gambling Commission recognise and allow flexibility for this?

I thought I read a while ago that previous winings do not constitute proof of income/affordability?

The deposit limit does seem to be counterintuitive as it discourages withdrawal and even promotes loading up ahead of major events.

It seems pretty random at present, and depends who you are and which company you are dealing with. My personal experience is that it has proved impossible to pass off either gambling winnings, or savings as income. That’s despite them stating that they do accept them on their list of accepted ‘proofs of income’.

The trouble is that there are no clear guidelines from the gambling commission to operators either. They are just told they will be fined if they break the rules, without actually knowing what the rules are. Nobody actually knows what the set requirements for passing an affordability check is. Everybody’s lifestyle and financial situations are completely different and unique, a one size fits all approach just doesn’t work.

One company makes you click a disclaimer acknowledging that your funds are not safe. Though if you dare to withdraw some of your balance to somewhere that it is safe, you then have to go through all the same rigmarole to deposit again. I think betfair add it back on to any limits you already have set, though it differs from company to company.

As you say, it encourages people to keep large balances in their accounts, which is ridiculous from a safety point of view. Nobody should be encouraged to keep funds where they have no financial protection.

The other point of note with this practise is that it would be a nightmare for any actual problem gamblers. Not being able to withdraw their balance when they wanted has been stated as a reason for relapse by many problem gamblers. Encouraging them not to withdraw won’t help the problem at all.

[wearthefoxhat]

For those who make their primary income from trading (betting) does the Gambling Commission recognise and allow flexibility for this?

I thought I read a while ago that previous winings do not constitute proof of income/affordability?

The deposit limit does seem to be counterintuitive as it discourages withdrawal and even promotes loading up ahead of major events.

It shouldn't discourage withdrawals as the deposit limit (for that month) expands and can be re-used.

It does however, stop the chance to take advantage of a random opportunity where a one off massive deposit isn't possible at short notice. eg: 2020 Presidential Election Joe Biden wins, but 1.10 was still available for weeks, as many believed Trump to be the winner....and some still do...although the market has been settled....

[ShaunWhite]

Nobody should be encouraged to keep funds where they have no financial protection.

There's actually very stringent protection with funds ringfenced in a seperate legal entity, its a requirement in obtaining a licence. Betfair have what's regarded the highest level of customer financial security.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/how-pro ... ust/430373

[RoyJay]

It shouldn't discourage withdrawals as the deposit limit (for that month) expands and can be re-used.

It does however, stop the chance to take advantage of a random opportunity where a one off massive deposit isn't possible at short notice. eg: 2020 Presidential Election Joe Biden wins, but 1.10 was still available for weeks, as many believed Trump to be the winner....and some still do...although the market has been settled....

Yes, good point.

Also, anyone who bets/trades sports regularly knows that it is seasonal, and most people would up their betting for weeks like Cheltenham and Ascot, and world cups etc. It’s stupid that the same limits will apply to February when there is nothing going on, as they will to June when there could be all sorts happening.

All these rules only work for the casino roulette virtual slot type betting, which should be outlawed anyway in my opinion. That sort of betting has no place outside the casino, shouldn’t be in betting shops, and certainly not online where a customer can’t be monitored.

There are too many grey areas in sports betting for these affordability rules to work, and they really need to separate the two. Sports and casino gambling are two completely different things.

[jamesedwards]

It shouldn't discourage withdrawals as the deposit limit (for that month) expands and can be re-used.

If you have a monthly limit of £1k but need a consistent bankroll of £10k to trade effectively then you now need to keep, perhaps, £20k+ in your account at all times in case you hit a bad run of variance as you can no longer top up quickly if you need to. Bad for return on investment (could be earning interest else where) and bad for risk (account hacking, bookie going under etc).

[RoyJay]

Nobody should be encouraged to keep funds where they have no financial protection.

There's actually very stringent protection with funds ringfenced in a seperate legal entity, its a requirement in obtaining a licence. Betfair have what's regarded the highest level of customer financial security.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/how-pro ... ust/430373

It’s different rules for different companies I think. And the full level protection isn’t the equivalent of FSCS protection is it? I was definitely made to click a box acknowledging my funds were not safe at one company anyway.

And regarding the advertising, I dont know, I’m not sure anything has been decided yet. I would have thought it would be the obvious place to start, then betting can go back to being niche rather than mainstream. Hidden away, but you know where to find it if you want it.

Nobody should be encouraged to gamble, though if somebody wants to, that should be their right, and up to them how much they can afford to bet. (Though that doesn’t mean that every bookmaker should be forced to lay all their price boosts, extra places, each way arbs and what not to everybody who demands it either, that’s a whole different argument, which also now seems to have blended into this one too!)

[ShaunWhite]

Is there a new centralised accounting body to make sure people don't have a grand with every big bookie and independent? If so where's the form people sign to opt out of the DPA?

[RoyJay]

Is there a new centralised accounting body to make sure people don't have a grand with every big bookie and independent? If so where's the form people sign to opt out of the DPA?

There isn’t anything, there isn’t even any law or white paper been passed yet.

There is just the gambling commission threatening to fine operators if they break the rules. And lots of operators making their own interpretations of these imaginary rules, and trying to act accordingly. Hence the big mess, and people getting their accounts either heavily restricted in what they can deposit, or in some cases, closed.

[ShaunWhite]

For those who make their primary income from trading (betting) does the Gambling Commission recognise and allow flexibility for this?

If the HMRC don't consider it as legitimate income then that's doubtful (and be careful what you wish for). Infact I don't know why they haven't tried to automatically link affordability to what's on your tax return in some sort of Orwellian dystopia.

[ShaunWhite]

Is there a new centralised accounting body to make sure people don't have a grand with every big bookie and independent? If so where's the form people sign to opt out of the DPA?

There isn’t anything, there isn’t even any law or white paper been passed yet.

I know Roy, it was a rhetorical question really highlighting yet another glaring gap in their thinking. Ditto syndicates & betting agents/brokers.

There's also some very grey legal areas about placing bets on other people's behalf. Not allowed if you win big and they find out, totally fine if it's your grannies fiver on the GN, but it's never actually had consequences so can 'granny' have 1000 fivers a week? I've been scouring the net to find out because my first thought was to setup WePlaceYourBet.com

[LeTiss]

Is there a new centralised accounting body to make sure people don't have a grand with every big bookie and independent? If so where's the form people sign to opt out of the DPA?

Good point. That seems totally unforceable to me

It's like chemists restricting people from buying too many paracetamols, even though they know you can buy more from another pharmacy.
As long as they've done their bit and ticked their box, that's all that matters

[Crazyskier]

Is there a new centralised accounting body to make sure people don't have a grand with every big bookie and independent? If so where's the form people sign to opt out of the DPA?

Good point. That seems totally unforceable to me

It's like chemists restricting people from buying too many paracetamols, even though they know you can buy more from another pharmacy.
As long as they've done their bit and ticked their box, that's all that matters

Actually that's precisely what it feels like to me. I have several other bookie accounts and none of those have any kind of restriction, though admittedly they have rather lower balances and liabilities than my BF one,

CS