Betfair Account Restrictions & closed accounts - Getting them removed and accounts reopened

[LeTiss]

Betfair have made a right bollox of all this

If you have a lifetime profit of £210,000.......then what the hell are they quibbling about?
That alone should be proof of you not being a problem gambler

Having a guaranteed income means jack shit......somebody might enjoy trips to casinos, or be a shopaholic, or have massive debts to service......the list goes on

The people being caught in the loop doesn't make sense

[Trader Pat]

Doesn't look like there's any end in sight for these restrictions.

[MobiusGrey]

Found the below quite an interesting read. Sites like BetDaq and BetFair could quite easily separate things out, just have 1 site where you can trade on an exchange with no links to anything else, no sports book, no casino, poker etc.

It would then be nice if they then deemed this 'trading' rather than gambling and stuck it under the FCA the same as spreadbetting.

Strict new affordability checks for gamblers will become the reality in Britain in a move likely to hit Paddy Power owner Flutter Entertainment, among others, one industry figure believes.

British betting regulator the Gambling Commission is proposing that gaming companies carry out mandatory affordability checks on customers who lose £100 (€113.96) or more a month, to limit harm, sparking heated debate with the industry.

Matt Zarb-Cousin, co-founder of Gamban, which has developed digital aids for problem gamblers, believes the debate on the issue is over. The question is now simply the level at which checks will apply.

“Operators are supposed to do them anyway, but they only do them where someone has lost tens of thousands,” he explained. “If you look at data on disposable income, £100 is probably about right.”

Mr Zarb-Cousin dismissed the argument that checks involved an invasion of betting company customers’ privacy as “operators already hold lots of data” on their punters.

A deadline on responses to the proposal passed last Tuesday. Betting companies and other groups argue that it is unrealistic and will damage their businesses.



Horse racing
British racing, partly funded through a levy on betting, believes the checks could cost the sport £60 million a year.

The British Horseracing Authority, along with groups representing trainers and owners, warned last week that this damage could be inflicted at a time when their industry was trying to recover from a £250 million loss from Covid-19 restrictions.

The £100-a-month affordability check could also hit Irish gambling giant Flutter, owner of Paddy Power, Betfair and Skybet, which operate in the British market.

Flutter chairman Ian Proctor argued in British newspaper City AM last week for a three-step approach.

He said this should involve applying appropriate spending limits at registration for customers with financial red flags, monitoring clients through safer gaming controls and applying a spending backstop on the “rare occasions” where the other two steps have missed something.

Gamban has developed an app that prevents problem gamblers from accessing betting sites. It is available free via treatment providers in Britain and Norway, while the company works with Irish charity Extern. Individuals can also download the app themselves and pay €2.50 per month to use it.

According to Mr Zarb-Cousin, 5 per cent of British customers account for 60 per cent of digital betting profits.

He argues that online slot machines and casino games are a key cause of problem betting.

Operators cross-sell these to customers who bet on racing and other sports. Mr Zarb-Cousin suggests that affordability checks could be less stringent if companies offered sports betting and casino games on separate sites, or required customers to use different “digital wallets” for each.

[Naffman]

If they really did limit everyone to £100 loss per month these companies would go broke so quick, something isn't adding up

[Derek27]

People who worked for Debenhams, BHS, etc. all had so-called guaranteed incomes.

[ANGELS15]

If they really did limit everyone to £100 loss per month these companies would go broke so quick, something isn't adding up

£100 per month is a total joke. That's about £3 per day! Even penny punters wouldn't be able to bet. Unfortunately as I've said before even if the gambling reviewers become aware of trading they'll find ways to limit that as well resulting in traders being unable to make a living.

[LeTiss]

I'm afraid the warning signs are there.......we need to make hay, whilst the sun is shining

I think Exchanges have had their day. We are witnessing the beginning of the end, because without a regular supply of punters, traders are basically trying to fish in a lake without any fish

[Naffman]

I'm afraid the warning signs are there.......we need to make hay, whilst the sun is shining

I think Exchanges have had their day. We are witnessing the beginning of the end, because without a regular supply of punters, traders are basically trying to fish in a lake without any fish

Couldn't have said it better myself unfortunately

[Crazyskier]

I regularly withdraw and deposit low 4-figure amounts always through Paypal (as banks hate gambling deposits!) and have had nothing at all from BF re KYC or deposit limits, etc. That said, I'm sure I'm still a negative lifetime punter in their eyes...

I still send get offers like Bet365s 'Bet £25 on the Belgium vs Italy match and we'll match it in-play' offers... but only really use them if I find them appealing, and I've not done MB to any great degree.

The only time I had an issue was when the casinos re-opened briefly last year, but there was no mention of a 'guaranteed income', just an awkward chat around responsible gaming and affordability.

I find this whole sea-change depressing, and believe, like others, that the FOBT machine 'victims' in betting shops have no correlation or bear any resemblance to the 'traders' or your average sports bettor - so they shouldn't really be lumped in together. I think there's far too much wanting to be seen to be doing something, than any real attempt at helping problem gamblers.

CS

[jamesedwards]

My situation:

I’m a tennis short odds punter rather than trader. I’ve made £210,000 lifetime profit and been caught by the premium charge for £5,000 though not paying any at the moment, though I’m £40k away from their super premium charge.

This is my full time job, though I’ve been less successful recently I’m still in profit since Jan by £1,500, though it’s possible if you look at the last 12 months I might be down with Betfair

I made a £5k deposit on Friday to make sure I had enough funds for Wimbledon and got a call from responsible gambling that evening. I said I was a full time gambler, this was the wrong answer and that with no guaranteed income I’m now restricted to £100 a month.

Just been on their chat function who basically said there is no way they can increase my limits as gambling income isn’t guaranteed. I said I have £150,000 sat in bank accounts so I obviously afford more than £100 a month and was told it doesn’t matter

I’m crushed I’ve been a full time gambler since 2007 and will likely have to get a “proper” job through no fault of my own. I have no idea what employer would be willing to employ me after 14 years out of the work market

Hi, I would appeal with a direct email to the CEO. I will PM his email address to you. Please let us know how you get on. Hopefully this is a mistake rather than policy. Out of interest is the £100 per month a limit of loss or limit of deposit?

[aperson]

That's probably the most worrying account I've heard yet. If you can't use savings and previous betting income as proof you can afford to bet/trade what are you meant to do. Do all the full timer's have to get a part time job at Tesco just to show they can afford to bet even with a few 100k in the bank. It's a joke. I had stuff like this when renting. The letting agency wouldn't accept savings as proof I could afford rent as "I could go out and spend it all tomorrow," like money from a salary is somehow different.

I'm sure we all kind of accept that other parties, banks etc may not understand or accept income from betting accounts as being reliable, but for betfair themselves to take this attitude is incredible. Someone should really give them as lesson in probability and the law of large numbers.

[megarain]

To be clear, maybe we should start a template as to how to respond to xxx if they ask questions.

Its certainly made me think about both withdrawing / depositing money into Bf.

[Euler]

It's the stupidity of this that gets my goat. You can sort of understand trying to protect people who can't help themselves, but the worst one I've seen so far is somebody who was £900k in lifetime profit. It's like they have a total moron in charge of compliance. It beggars belief.

[Euler]

In other news I learnt this week that Dermot Desmond has triggered a buy out clause for Betdaq so that's going to break out of it's current owner, Entain group and become independent again. Will take a little while to decouple but once again they will be independent. So here is hoping they use that opportunity.

[Euler]

To be clear, maybe we should start a template as to how to respond to xxx if they ask questions.

Good idea.