Gambling Review White Paper update

[sionascaig]

Looks like you can "edit" it?

[firlandsfarm]

I was told yesterday by the National Lottery (Euromillions, £124 million!) that I had used £25 of my £1,500 weekly spending allowance!!

[xtrader16]

I was told yesterday by the National Lottery (Euromillions, £124 million!) that I had used £25 of my £1,500 weekly spending allowance!!

This just sums up the Government. You an spend £1500 per week on the National Lottery but only deposit £100 per month into your William Hill account. Idiots.

[topogigiokiller]

Hi, when the Withe Paper will be voted or enter his effects?

[topogigiokiller]

Another questions... this withe paper will be affect on UK accounts only? If I am from mexico, i will be affected too? (mexico can bet on betfair.com) thx for help

[MaxLiability]

You can't replace you're stolen dog or gifts left to you by your grandparents. But perhaps a better example would be: imagine somebody hacked into your email and was quietly reading all your personal and private emails for the last two years. You wouldn't know about it but you'd be furious if you found out!

Pretty sure google and every other email provider have been doing that for decades as part of their data gathering

They won't be reading emails. I doubt anyone at Google would want to know I'm catching the 16:30 to London.

You can be assured they'd know some train ticket sellers that would though.

[Euler]

Hi, when the Withe Paper will be voted or enter his effects?

Has to go to committee stage then debated and voted in. So a long time yet, if ever. Some of it will depend on the next election, which is next year.

[Euler]

Good angle here, can you imagine heavily biased lobby groups with almost unlimited funding to find any confirmation bias they wish: -

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-anti-gambling-racket/

[Michael5482]

Good angle here, can you imagine heavily biased lobby groups with almost unlimited funding to find any confirmation bias they wish: -

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-anti-gambling-racket/

Interesting read, Peter Jackson at Flutter coming from a similar angle fearing the gambling levy may be used to fund anti-gambling organisations.

https://www.ft.com/content/ae58f52c-3c9 ... 78699a05ff




.

[aperson]

https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain ... XE6p30zAN/

This article in the Racing Post mentions that the "horse racing betting forum" are meeting with the gambling minister shortly and that they can be emailed at [email protected]. I don't know too much about them but it seems to me it could be a good way to try and get any points across.

For my part the main things I am trying to push for are that these affordability checks shouldn't apply to winning accounts. If you lose £1000 in a day that should only be relevant if that money comes from your bank account and not just your betting balance which is comprised of previous winnings.

Further to this if any restrictions are to be placed on peoples accounts these should only take the form of deposit limits for the same reason. Things like stake or loss limits just don't make sense in the context of winning accounts or the world of trading and "spending" should only be seen as the money spent from your bank account not within betting accounts themselves.

I fully intend to make these points and more during the consultation period but just looking for any opportunity to get these points across.

[napshnap]

https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain ... XE6p30zAN/

This article in the Racing Post mentions that the "horse racing betting forum" are meeting with the gambling minister shortly and that they can be emailed at [email protected]. I don't know too much about them but it seems to me it could be a good way to try and get any points across.

For my part the main things I am trying to push for are that these affordability checks shouldn't apply to winning accounts. If you lose £1000 in a day that should only be relevant if that money comes from your bank account and not just your betting balance which is comprised of previous winnings.

Further to this if any restrictions are to be placed on peoples accounts these should only take the form of deposit limits for the same reason. Things like stake or loss limits just don't make sense in the context of winning accounts or the world of trading and "spending" should only be seen as the money spent from your bank account not within betting accounts themselves.

I fully intend to make these points and more during the consultation period but just looking for any opportunity to get these points across.

Good point from LordBobbin.

...

...

The bookies know which ones are the problem gamblers. They'll be the ones suddenly putting on bet after bet on a range of different markets - and usually with constantly increasing stake sizes. They'll do that until their bank has gone, and then they'll redeposit and carry on doing the same thing until they're broke. However, my own betting is nothing like that, and provided I can keep increasing my bank, I should be able to keep raising my stakes for as long as liquidity will allow. I shouldn't be living in fear of my account being shuttered simply because of some rules which will supposedly stop a few people who aren't able to help themselves.

[jamesedwards]

https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain ... XE6p30zAN/

This article in the Racing Post mentions that the "horse racing betting forum" are meeting with the gambling minister shortly and that they can be emailed at [email protected]. I don't know too much about them but it seems to me it could be a good way to try and get any points across.

For my part the main things I am trying to push for are that these affordability checks shouldn't apply to winning accounts. If you lose £1000 in a day that should only be relevant if that money comes from your bank account and not just your betting balance which is comprised of previous winnings.

Further to this if any restrictions are to be placed on peoples accounts these should only take the form of deposit limits for the same reason. Things like stake or loss limits just don't make sense in the context of winning accounts or the world of trading and "spending" should only be seen as the money spent from your bank account not within betting accounts themselves.

I fully intend to make these points and more during the consultation period but just looking for any opportunity to get these points across.

Thanks for the link. I've just sent them an email.

The challenge with this is the common misconception that all gamblers will lose in the long run, so in their heads people like us don't exist. They don't want gambling winnings to count towards affordability because they want to protect people who win a one-off large amount from proceeding to gamble it all (and possibly more) away. Our argument needs to specify 'professional' and/or 'long term consistent winners' rather than simply 'winners'.

[aperson]

https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain ... XE6p30zAN/

This article in the Racing Post mentions that the "horse racing betting forum" are meeting with the gambling minister shortly and that they can be emailed at [email protected]. I don't know too much about them but it seems to me it could be a good way to try and get any points across.

For my part the main things I am trying to push for are that these affordability checks shouldn't apply to winning accounts. If you lose £1000 in a day that should only be relevant if that money comes from your bank account and not just your betting balance which is comprised of previous winnings.

Further to this if any restrictions are to be placed on peoples accounts these should only take the form of deposit limits for the same reason. Things like stake or loss limits just don't make sense in the context of winning accounts or the world of trading and "spending" should only be seen as the money spent from your bank account not within betting accounts themselves.

I fully intend to make these points and more during the consultation period but just looking for any opportunity to get these points across.

Thanks for the link. I've just sent them an email.

The challenge with this is the common misconception that all gamblers will lose in the long run, so in their heads people like us don't exist. They don't want gambling winnings to count towards affordability because they want to protect people who win a one-off large amount from proceeding to gamble it all (and possibly more) away. Our argument needs to specify 'professional' and/or 'long term consistent winners' rather than simply 'winners'.

Thanks for e-mailing, the more the merrier. Yeah, maybe not the worst idea on the wording. I guess that's part of the problem, even within the betting industry we are a niche within a niche. Even more reason to try and get our point across because otherwise it won't even be part of the conversation.

Listened to this the other day https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001ljd2. It's quite infuriating it's like doing a show on pubs and asking only the family of alcoholics to call up. It seems to be taken by many, including the BBC, that it's impossible to win at gambling and that's it's basically evil. I don't suppose they want to hear hear the answer to "how have you and your family been affected by gambling" from people on here.

[Michael5482]

I wrote to my MP after the white paper weeks ago regarding similar issues above and had a reply the other day and he's forwarded my issues to the The Department for Culture Media and Sport probably because he can't answer my questions. They were along the lines of:

Betting (trading) with net profit I've not deposited into a betting account for nearly 18 months so how can anyone carry out a credit check on me for losing net profit if anything checks should be on deposits so not to cause issues with net winners.

Not really applicable to me personally but put the scenario forward of an individual who lost on Betfair but won with Ladbrokes, Betfair carry out a credit check but the individual is up with Ladbrokes which created a net profit overall.

I highlighted out that the white paper was labeled as bringing gambling in the digital age but pointed out you can open an unregulated Asian account via a VPN or unregulated crypto betting site in the same time it takes to open a UK regulated betting account.

How will credit checks show on your credit report what if I want credit in the future but refused because of gambling credit checks that were incorrectly carried out despite being in lifetime net profit.

[Michael5482]

https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain ... XE6p30zAN/

This article in the Racing Post mentions that the "horse racing betting forum" are meeting with the gambling minister shortly and that they can be emailed at [email protected]. I don't know too much about them but it seems to me it could be a good way to try and get any points across.

For my part the main things I am trying to push for are that these affordability checks shouldn't apply to winning accounts. If you lose £1000 in a day that should only be relevant if that money comes from your bank account and not just your betting balance which is comprised of previous winnings.

Further to this if any restrictions are to be placed on peoples accounts these should only take the form of deposit limits for the same reason. Things like stake or loss limits just don't make sense in the context of winning accounts or the world of trading and "spending" should only be seen as the money spent from your bank account not within betting accounts themselves.

I fully intend to make these points and more during the consultation period but just looking for any opportunity to get these points across.

Thanks for the e-mail address I'll drop them a message