Gambling Review White Paper update

[Crazyskier]

I spoke with the Experian UK Head of Gaming back in Feb and his expectation is the Operator (eg Betfair) will request an affordability score from their partner Credit Agency (eg Experian) when a customer breaches a loss threshold. Based on the affordability score returned the Operator will set appropriate limits to deposits/exposure/losses etc. You can help to maximise your affordability score by keeping a good credit rating and maintaining consistent income/deposits into your main current account.

He also expected the same affordability check to be run for all new accounts as well as periodically for all active accounts, although there is no mention of this in the White Paper that I can see.

Actually the agencies, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax etc can NOT see your current account activity unless you opt in for a limited time 'score boost' that grants open banking permission.

The scores are generally based upon a number of factors such as lack of defaults, CCJs or IVAs / bankruptcy, being on the Voter's roll and having long-standing high (5 or 6 figure) credit limits with balances that are below 33% of the limit with all greens on the last few years payment records. I spent a long time pursuing a perfect 999 on Experian with Credit Expert some years ago, to help drive down car lease and interest rate costs, and these are the factors I remember were necessary.

CS

They can't see your specific banking transactions without open banking, but they are supposed to be creating a headline view of your estimated income and disposable income using top-line account info and CATO (Current Account Turnover) data from banks:

"Income Estimation & Verification: Experian is working with Current Account Turnover (CATO) data provided by UK banks to develop a method of reliably estimating income. Incomes supplied on a credit application can be checked against this data to provide an independent view of an applicant’s level of income"

The gambling affordability score is not expected to be the same as your credit score. It may be similarly driven in some ways but has been tasked to weigh more towards assumed disposable income, post code affluence (disgusting!) and credit defaults, ahead of traditional credit score attributes such as voter roll, credit utilization etc. See below pulled from the gambling White Paper.

I wasn't aware of this development for gamblers affordability checks - thanks for the update, James.

My first thought is that one usually states one's salary as gross, yet after PAYE tax, NI, company car ownership scheme, pension and other deductions are taken out, the amount that reaches one's bank can often be less than half of the gross figure. This means I don't imagine that the CATO figures will be very accurate or reliable.

CS

[jamesedwards]

I wasn't aware of this development for gamblers affordability checks - thanks for the update, James.

My first thought is that one usually states one's salary as gross, yet after PAYE tax, NI, company car ownership scheme, pension and other deductions are taken out, the amount that reaches one's bank can often be less than half of the gross figure. This means I don't imagine that the CATO figures will be very accurate or reliable.

CS

I think it was happening anyway as a development to improve credit searches, it's just an unfortunate coincidence.

It seems a risk that we may all end up at the whim of some discretionary income algorithms. A couple of erroneous estimations or living in the wrong postcode could see someone unfairly limited, especially if the thresholds end up being tight.

This is one of the things I've asked HBF to raise with the Minister on behalf of professional traders who gamble for a living:
> How does the process ensure there is no disruption to the livelihoods of consistently profitable full-time traders who may, technically, demonstrate little of no employment income? For a successful trader a £1000 loss in a day is not a sign of "binge gambling", it is a natural variance and to be occasionally expected.

[WisdomOfCrowds]

This is a very good question, James.

I hope there is sufficient scrutiny of the bill to get detailed answers. Blackholes in the bill will otherwise exist.

Sadly, politicians are more likely to be concerned with headlines than substance which is a problem. I fear many may think making a living from gambling is immoral and could use this as a means of making it rather more difficult to do.

We really need someone in parliament to be batting for us.

[ShaunWhite]

Sadly, politicians are more likely to be concerned with headlines than substance...... .

Preventing that sort of self serving legislation is a function of the House of Lords, it's the reason so many politicians want to abolish it. The last decade of politics has been all about moving "control" to Downing St.

[ANGELS15]

This is a very good question, James.

I hope there is sufficient scrutiny of the bill to get detailed answers. Blackholes in the bill will otherwise exist.

Sadly, politicians are more likely to be concerned with headlines than substance which is a problem. I fear many may think making a living from gambling is immoral and could use this as a means of making it rather more difficult to do.

We really need someone in parliament to be batting for us.

I'd be wary of trying to make politicians aware of our trading. I have no doubt that once they are aware of it they'll curtail it or worse tax it. Also at the end of the day there are many many failed traders that have lost a fortune.

[Crazyskier]

This is a very good question, James.

I hope there is sufficient scrutiny of the bill to get detailed answers. Blackholes in the bill will otherwise exist.

Sadly, politicians are more likely to be concerned with headlines than substance which is a problem. I fear many may think making a living from gambling is immoral and could use this as a means of making it rather more difficult to do.

We really need someone in parliament to be batting for us.

I'd be wary of trying to make politicians aware of our trading. I have no doubt that once they are aware of it they'll curtail it or worse tax it. Also at the end of the day there are many many failed traders that have lost a fortune.

Valid point. Every trader that profits is at the cost of a losing trader or punter. As Peter has mentioned, it's a zero sum game.

CS

[ShaunWhite]

it's a zero sum game.

It would be if there wasn't commission to pay. If two people had alternate days where each lost or won they'd both eventually have nothing because 2% gets skimmed off each time. If it was a ZSG then Betfair or PokerStars wouldn't make any money.

[Hepburn]

Im trying to make sense of this. I understand that theres soft checks on losses at certain amounts. But does this matter if you're overall up in profit in the year?

[Euler]

Im trying to make sense of this. I understand that theres soft checks on losses at certain amounts. But does this matter if you're overall up in profit in the year?

No it's only losses

[Derek27]

They're like cod fishermen who don't care how many dolphins are caught in the net!

[ShaunWhite]

Im trying to make sense of this. I understand that theres soft checks on losses at certain amounts. But does this matter if you're overall up in profit in the year?

Checks are triggered by deposits, if you've won and it's sat in your account it's fine. If you're not depositing it's hard to argue you're spending money you might need.....unless your winnings count as income which at the moment is a grey area.

But its a area you need a pro consultant like James to comment on What does losing a grand actually mean if deposits are the red flag? And if its just betting losses being the flag and you never need to deposit, then what's the big affordability deal?

[Hepburn]

Im trying to make sense of this. I understand that theres soft checks on losses at certain amounts. But does this matter if you're overall up in profit in the year?

Checks are triggered by deposits, if you've won and it's sat in your account it's fine. If you're not depositing it's hard to argue you're spending money you might need.....unless your winnings count as income which at the moment is a grey area.

But its a area you need a pro consultant like James to comment on What does losing a grand actually mean if deposits are the red flag? And if its just betting losses being the flag and you never need to deposit, then what's the big affordability deal?

Ok nice one so no deposits no problemo.

[Derek27]

Ok nice one so no deposits no problemo.

No deposits, no new customers, no losers putting more in = no more winners.

[ruthlessimon]

Matched betting & arbing in 2024: Win £500 you’ll get restricted, lose £500 you’ll get restricted & if the mother-in-law has an account, free tickets to the slammer.

[conduirez]

The most scariest thing that worries me is you go for a mortgage in the future and you are declined because a betting firm has issued a credit check against you as per government statute Let nobody tell me that with all the promises the government give that these checks will always be hidden from banks.
I am really fed up with the nanny state occasionally I use to come home from work and would go in the local bookmaker and had a couple of £1 bets on races that you would not normally touch or if there was no racing have a fiver in the betting machines sometimes win and sometimes lose just to pass the time, if I went in the coffee shop that would be a few quid as well, then I would go to the station next door and get my train, then some politician changes the rules with the machines and lo and behold at least three people who worked in the betting shop are out of work, these people used to put money back in the local community, and oh yes the betting shop closed. I can guess what happened to the people who use to keep the bookmaker open are now betting and losing bigtime online they are giving their money to conglomerates.
So what I am really trying to say is for the government to stop being a nanny state and stop ruining ordinary peoples lives, these checks I am sure will end up on your credit report.
I care about people but not to the extent of people who cannot control themselves, I do not want my local carvery pub to shut because some people cannot control their alcohol consumption.