As we know, gambling is exempt from income tax. Anyone having to prove that their main/sole income comes from Betfair in order to play, is going to be of interest to HMRC imo. Coupled with the fact we may argue that we are not really gambling at all as we have a skilled edge. Betfair already say that anyone paying PC is a trader and 'tax' them accordingly.
It could be that someone could prove that they are a trader and not a gambler in order to be exempt from any restrictions, but that would leave them wide open to taxation.
Betfair Account Restrictions & closed accounts - Getting them removed and accounts reopened
-
jamesedwards
- Posts: 2323
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm
Hopefully the impact to sports betting and betting exchanges will be light, especially given the recent economic strain from Covid. Most likely IMHO we will see some compromise with the heaviest restrictions targeted at casino gaming only.
However if the worst was to happen and draconian deposit/loss/time limits became enforced on the Exchange then Betfair liquidity could dry up to a point where trading is no longer feasible for most if not all of us.
I wonder what contingency options Bet Angel are considering? There are other API trading platforms out there which trade in Bitcoin and sit outside of UK regulation.
However if the worst was to happen and draconian deposit/loss/time limits became enforced on the Exchange then Betfair liquidity could dry up to a point where trading is no longer feasible for most if not all of us.
I wonder what contingency options Bet Angel are considering? There are other API trading platforms out there which trade in Bitcoin and sit outside of UK regulation.
Quite rightly so. If they bring in daily loss limits for example that would effectively scupper trading for many people. Say it was £100 per day, it's quite possible to be down that amount early in the day but then £100 up later on. Thats with modest stakes, even for a recreational punter having £20 bets.
What a fascinating account CS. I haven't been into a casino for quite a long time, so had no idea this was happeningCrazyskier wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:10 pmIt's funny. My wife and I went into our local casino (Grosvenor) late last summer after the early lockdown restrictions were eased, mainly for the 2-4-1 cocktails they used to do before 9PM.
We had a drink, and when I wandered over the the touch-screen roulette machine, not only was the screen cleaned thoroughly by a watching waitress before I could touch it, and a mask handed for me to wear on the gaming floor (as opposed to the bar), but shortly after loading in some pound notes, a manager came across and explained that the new gaming regulations meant that he must enquire as to my affordability!
He was very embarrassed and it was a really awkward conversation as he was asking really detailed questions about income and how much I was gaming. Eventually I showed him my Premier Banking (black) Barclays debit card, and suggested that we were quite liquid enough to spend a few hundred on the roulette if we so wished, and he apologised again and wandered off.
I must admit it was really off-putting and I actually felt sorry for the chap having to ask such probing questions! Anyway, since then we haven't been able to go back anyway with the 2nd wave, but it does make me wonder how any but the heavily addicted might feel having to go through that just to wager a bit on a live casino in future.
As others have said, I just hope they leave football, the nags and the dogs alone, and focus on the FOBTs and online casinos / poker sites which I'm sure cause the most harm to those betting more than they can afford to lose.
CS
This is set to turn into a farce. Surely, every single person has a right to privacy about their income and finances. What gives a casino manager the right to determine a customer's affordability?
-
Realrocknrolla
- Posts: 1903
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2020 7:15 pm
I thought it! You wrote it!!!LeTiss wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:22 pmWhat a fascinating account CS. I haven't been into a casino for quite a long time, so had no idea this was happeningCrazyskier wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:10 pmIt's funny. My wife and I went into our local casino (Grosvenor) late last summer after the early lockdown restrictions were eased, mainly for the 2-4-1 cocktails they used to do before 9PM.
We had a drink, and when I wandered over the the touch-screen roulette machine, not only was the screen cleaned thoroughly by a watching waitress before I could touch it, and a mask handed for me to wear on the gaming floor (as opposed to the bar), but shortly after loading in some pound notes, a manager came across and explained that the new gaming regulations meant that he must enquire as to my affordability!
He was very embarrassed and it was a really awkward conversation as he was asking really detailed questions about income and how much I was gaming. Eventually I showed him my Premier Banking (black) Barclays debit card, and suggested that we were quite liquid enough to spend a few hundred on the roulette if we so wished, and he apologised again and wandered off.
I must admit it was really off-putting and I actually felt sorry for the chap having to ask such probing questions! Anyway, since then we haven't been able to go back anyway with the 2nd wave, but it does make me wonder how any but the heavily addicted might feel having to go through that just to wager a bit on a live casino in future.
As others have said, I just hope they leave football, the nags and the dogs alone, and focus on the FOBTs and online casinos / poker sites which I'm sure cause the most harm to those betting more than they can afford to lose.
CS
This is set to turn into a farce. Surely, every single person has a right to privacy about their income and finances. What gives a casino manager the right to determine a customer's affordability?
Went to go to the casino before the 2nd lockdown with the wife! We had a few and fancied a spin on the roulette. Got as far as reception when they said wear masks at the tables but can drink at the bar! Croupiers were maskless!
-
jamesedwards
- Posts: 2323
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm
Just noticed the GC have added a much shorter quantitative survey which is almost all multiple choice and takes about 3 mins to complete.
Please everyone take this opportunity to add your say, before it is too late!
https://consult.gamblingcommission.gov. ... sult_view/
Please everyone take this opportunity to add your say, before it is too late!
https://consult.gamblingcommission.gov. ... sult_view/
-
Jordanauburn123
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:55 am
I think a fair few may be missing the crux of the issue when it comes to potential loss limits.
Let's say a loss limit of £1k per month is implemented. You may think that wouldn't affect you as you've never been a grand down in a month. The point, though, is that you would be restricted from opening up a lay side trade which exposed you in excess of £1k (a £100 lay at 12.0 wouldn't be possible), as it's not possible to know you plan to green up at any point.
Any loss limits of this kind, without generous exemptions for traders, would be a death knell.
Happy Saturday!
Let's say a loss limit of £1k per month is implemented. You may think that wouldn't affect you as you've never been a grand down in a month. The point, though, is that you would be restricted from opening up a lay side trade which exposed you in excess of £1k (a £100 lay at 12.0 wouldn't be possible), as it's not possible to know you plan to green up at any point.
Any loss limits of this kind, without generous exemptions for traders, would be a death knell.
Happy Saturday!
That would effectively limit all bets to no more than £1kJordanauburn123 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:01 pmI think a fair few may be missing the crux of the issue when it comes to potential loss limits.
Let's say a loss limit of £1k per month is implemented. You may think that wouldn't affect you as you've never been a grand down in a month. The point, though, is that you would be restricted from opening up a lay side trade which exposed you in excess of £1k (a £100 lay at 12.0 wouldn't be possible), as it's not possible to know you plan to green up at any point.
Any loss limits of this kind, without generous exemptions for traders, would be a death knell.
Happy Saturday!
-
Jordanauburn123
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:55 am
It would, yes. Hence why it would destroy even semi pro trading as currently proposed. Worrying, but at the same time so absurd that I don’t think it will come to that.
The scenario I laid out has clearly not occurred to the proponents of the policy. Frankly they’re looking at it through a narrow lens - one where the bookie always wins. I doubt they even know this sort of trading exists.
The scenario I laid out has clearly not occurred to the proponents of the policy. Frankly they’re looking at it through a narrow lens - one where the bookie always wins. I doubt they even know this sort of trading exists.
-
wearthefoxhat
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am
Jordanauburn123 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:26 amIt would, yes. Hence why it would destroy even semi pro trading as currently proposed. Worrying, but at the same time so absurd that I don’t think it will come to that.
The scenario I laid out has clearly not occurred to the proponents of the policy. Frankly they’re looking at it through a narrow lens - one where the bookie always wins. I doubt they even know this sort of trading exists.
This is likely to occur in betting offices/on-line sportsbooks/on-line casinos/poker, if it goes through. (restrictions to a loss of £100 a month)
https://www.racingpost.com/news/warning ... les/470671
-
BeastofBrine
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:32 pm
The direction of travel for gambling regulation has been concerning me for some time, particularly because I plan to move to trading full time this year.
A number of people in this thread have already highlighted the pressures being brought to bear by anti-money-laundering legislation and the consumer protection lobby, but the way the UK regulates speculation/trading more generally is what has got me really worried.
The following article discusses the ban on trading crypto-currency derivatives, e.g. spreadbetting on the value of bitcoin, that came into effect this month: https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/analys ... -advisers/
The key thing to note is that the FCA held a consultation, and 97% of the respondents opposed the ban. They then went ahead with it anyway.
This follows on from the previous ban on fixed odds bets on financial markets, also called binary betting (just in case you wonder why there is no longer a ‘financials’ section on Betfair). The justification given is also remarkably similar, couched in terms of difficultly of comprehension, financial risk to consumers, and the ‘lack of investment need’.
Technically, it is still possible to trade in these products if one is a ‘professional investor’. To give you a flavour of what that looks like in practice, it is someone who meets two of the following:
the client has carried out transactions, in significant size, on the relevant market at an average frequency of 10 per quarter over the previous four quarters; or
the size of the client's financial instrument portfolio, defined as including cash deposits and financial instruments, exceeds EUR 500,000; or
the client works or has worked in the financial sector for at least one year in a professional position, which requires knowledge of the transactions or services envisaged”
The only way I can see this kind of infantising nonsense being kept at bay in the gambling world, is if the large bookmakers are able to apply enough pressure to politicians by talking about job losses and loss of tax revenue. And we better hope they do, because I am absolutely certain that whatever pencil-pushers and apparatchiks are assigned to ‘modernise’ betting will not give a damn about Betfair traders, and will be just as likely to ignore their own consultation as the FCA.
A number of people in this thread have already highlighted the pressures being brought to bear by anti-money-laundering legislation and the consumer protection lobby, but the way the UK regulates speculation/trading more generally is what has got me really worried.
The following article discusses the ban on trading crypto-currency derivatives, e.g. spreadbetting on the value of bitcoin, that came into effect this month: https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/analys ... -advisers/
The key thing to note is that the FCA held a consultation, and 97% of the respondents opposed the ban. They then went ahead with it anyway.
This follows on from the previous ban on fixed odds bets on financial markets, also called binary betting (just in case you wonder why there is no longer a ‘financials’ section on Betfair). The justification given is also remarkably similar, couched in terms of difficultly of comprehension, financial risk to consumers, and the ‘lack of investment need’.
Technically, it is still possible to trade in these products if one is a ‘professional investor’. To give you a flavour of what that looks like in practice, it is someone who meets two of the following:
the client has carried out transactions, in significant size, on the relevant market at an average frequency of 10 per quarter over the previous four quarters; or
the size of the client's financial instrument portfolio, defined as including cash deposits and financial instruments, exceeds EUR 500,000; or
the client works or has worked in the financial sector for at least one year in a professional position, which requires knowledge of the transactions or services envisaged”
The only way I can see this kind of infantising nonsense being kept at bay in the gambling world, is if the large bookmakers are able to apply enough pressure to politicians by talking about job losses and loss of tax revenue. And we better hope they do, because I am absolutely certain that whatever pencil-pushers and apparatchiks are assigned to ‘modernise’ betting will not give a damn about Betfair traders, and will be just as likely to ignore their own consultation as the FCA.
-
Jordanauburn123
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:55 am
Agreed with the above. I’ve worked in Whitehall for a few years, and have worked on a few consultations (not in this area). Responses to calls for evidence are of course considered but there’s no hiding from the influence of tax revenue (in reality rather than officially) - and I think that’s the key difference between this and the btc example above.
As for these loss limits only applying to sportsbooks etc, I’ve read nothing in the consultation to suggest exchanges would be exempt. And I’m pretty sure this is because the proponents of the policy have absolutely no idea of the differences between sportsbooks and exchanges. Clearly there will be significant lobbying on this point so it’s just a watching brief atm. But please do respond to the consultation’s call for evidence!!!
I for one would be absolutely gutted if the nanny state fooks this up, as my automation is currently on fire.
As for these loss limits only applying to sportsbooks etc, I’ve read nothing in the consultation to suggest exchanges would be exempt. And I’m pretty sure this is because the proponents of the policy have absolutely no idea of the differences between sportsbooks and exchanges. Clearly there will be significant lobbying on this point so it’s just a watching brief atm. But please do respond to the consultation’s call for evidence!!!
I for one would be absolutely gutted if the nanny state fooks this up, as my automation is currently on fire.