Gambling Commission Announcement & Government consultation

[transferFunds]

Of course they could easily who is using automation and which bets are placed by bots etc so it wouldn't be to hard to exclude them when calculating time spent ...

Hi Dallas ... can they distinguish a bet placed by BA from automation and one placed manually from the Ladder? Would they not just see both bets as being from overlay software such as BA?

I'd be surprised if BA distinguishes between automated bets and manual when fired via BA. Plus most botters spend plenty of time to ensure automated bets appear to be manual bets just to avoid being fingerprinted and picked off by other bots

[Anbell]

Of course they could easily who is using automation and which bets are placed by bots etc so it wouldn't be to hard to exclude them when calculating time spent ...

Hi Dallas ... can they distinguish a bet placed by BA from automation and one placed manually from the Ladder? Would they not just see both bets as being from overlay software such as BA?

I'd be surprised if BA distinguishes between automated bets and manual when fired via BA. Plus most botters spend plenty of time to ensure automated bets appear to be manual bets just to avoid being fingerprinted and picked off by other bots

Do they really?

[ShaunWhite]

Plus most botters spend plenty of time to ensure automated bets appear to be manual bets just to avoid being fingerprinted and picked off by other bots

Do they really?

No.

[Kai]

If anything I try to appear more like a bot

[ANGELS15]

There's been a couple of articles in the Racing Post over the last few days regarding the impending 'white paper' and it's delay due to recent events.

In yesterday's article there's an interesting quote 'The Racing Post understands that a proposal contained in the white paper places the threshold for enhanced checks at a net loss of £2000 over a 90 day period'.

[deestar]

There's been a couple of articles in the Racing Post over the last few days regarding the impending 'white paper' and it's delay due to recent events.

In yesterday's article there's an interesting quote 'The Racing Post understands that a proposal contained in the white paper places the threshold for enhanced checks at a net loss of £2000 over a 90 day period'.

Sounds fairly reasonable to me if true.

[Derek27]

There's been a couple of articles in the Racing Post over the last few days regarding the impending 'white paper' and it's delay due to recent events.

So Johnson can take credit for something at least.

[Dallas]

There's been a couple of articles in the Racing Post over the last few days regarding the impending 'white paper' and it's delay due to recent events.

In yesterday's article there's an interesting quote 'The Racing Post understands that a proposal contained in the white paper places the threshold for enhanced checks at a net loss of £2000 over a 90 day period'.

I did hear its been 'watered down' quiet a lot from the original proposals as it went through parliament committee stages or maybe a better way to word it is some common sense has been applied to certain areas and a blanket rule for everyone won't always be applied

[ANGELS15]

There's been a couple of articles in the Racing Post over the last few days regarding the impending 'white paper' and it's delay due to recent events.

In yesterday's article there's an interesting quote 'The Racing Post understands that a proposal contained in the white paper places the threshold for enhanced checks at a net loss of £2000 over a 90 day period'.

I did hear its been 'watered down' quiet a lot from the original proposals as it went through parliament committee stages or maybe a better way to word it is some common sense has been applied to certain areas and a blanket rule for everyone won't always be applied

Yes if they do go ahead with this it will be interesting to see how bookmakers and exchanges will implement it. For example will they look back at punter's records and say 'punter A tends to lose shed loads of money so we'll only allow him a £500 loss over 90 days or punter B tends to be profitable (if an exchange trader/punter!) so we'll allow them the full £2000. Or will everyone start off with a fresh slate and gets the £2000 alllowance which is then reviewed.

Another thing is will they initiate some kind of monitor on our accounts and say 'oh we're 45 days in and you've already lost £1000 perhaps we'll limit your stakes so so you don't get to £2000.

I guess we'll have to see but as there seems to be a cricis every 5 minutes and the paper keeps getting delayed who knows when that will be.

[ANGELS15]

I just thought I'd share something I read in yesterdays Racing Post. It appears that another leaked detail of the impending white paper is that there will be 'passive checks' 'which would go unnoticed by customers' where there was a net loss of £125 a month or £500 within a year. The checks would be carried out by credit reference agencies looking for issues such as county court judgements. More detailed checks would take place for losses of £1000 in 24 hours as well as for £2000 net loss over 90 days.

This raises a few issues. A net loss of £125 in a month would pretty much encompas all regular online punters. The article says the credibility checks would be looking for things like county court judgements. It must surely going to cost operators a fortune to have all their customers monitored?

Also as I understand it credit reference agencies also keep details of customer payments for things like loans and credit payments, even mobile phone contracts so not sure if that would be included or trigger an alarm if a customer was late with a bill.

If a loss of £1000 in 24 hours triggers an alarm what will happen at the top meetings like Cheltenham, Royal Ascot etc where 1000s of punters like to have big bets? Perhaps the 'affordability checks' will identify those punters in advance anyway so they would carry on as usual?

[Archery1969]

I just thought I'd share something I read in yesterdays Racing Post. It appears that another leaked detail of the impending white paper is that there will be 'passive checks' 'which would go unnoticed by customers' where there was a net loss of £125 a month or £500 within a year. The checks would be carried out by credit reference agencies looking for issues such as county court judgements. More detailed checks would take place for losses of £1000 in 24 hours as well as for £2000 net loss over 90 days.

This raises a few issues. A net loss of £125 in a month would pretty much encompas all regular online punters. The article says the credibility checks would be looking for things like county court judgements. It must surely going to cost operators a fortune to have all their customers monitored?

Also as I understand it credit reference agencies also keep details of customer payments for things like loans and credit payments, even mobile phone contracts so not sure if that would be included or trigger an alarm if a customer was late with a bill.

If a loss of £1000 in 24 hours triggers an alarm what will happen at the top meetings like Cheltenham, Royal Ascot etc where 1000s of punters like to have big bets? Perhaps the 'affordability checks' will identify those punters in advance anyway so they would carry on as usual?

You need a customers Consent before doing a hard credit search to find out about CCJ’s etc. They may find allot of punters refuse the consent.

[ANGELS15]

I just thought I'd share something I read in yesterdays Racing Post. It appears that another leaked detail of the impending white paper is that there will be 'passive checks' 'which would go unnoticed by customers' where there was a net loss of £125 a month or £500 within a year. The checks would be carried out by credit reference agencies looking for issues such as county court judgements. More detailed checks would take place for losses of £1000 in 24 hours as well as for £2000 net loss over 90 days.

This raises a few issues. A net loss of £125 in a month would pretty much encompas all regular online punters. The article says the credibility checks would be looking for things like county court judgements. It must surely going to cost operators a fortune to have all their customers monitored?

Also as I understand it credit reference agencies also keep details of customer payments for things like loans and credit payments, even mobile phone contracts so not sure if that would be included or trigger an alarm if a customer was late with a bill.

If a loss of £1000 in 24 hours triggers an alarm what will happen at the top meetings like Cheltenham, Royal Ascot etc where 1000s of punters like to have big bets? Perhaps the 'affordability checks' will identify those punters in advance anyway so they would carry on as usual?

You need a customers Consent before doing a hard credit search to find out about CCJ’s etc. They may find allot of punters refuse the consent.

Yes! I'd forgotten about that. This is why loan companies always ask if the applicant agrees to a credit check before going ahead with the application. So presumably the online operators will ask their customers if they agree to credit checks and many may refuse as you say.

Another thing I'm wondering is whether these are going to be 'soft' credit checks which don't leave a footprint on the customer's credit file otherwise their files will be inundated with checks.If they are not 'soft' checks and appear on record will this affect credit applications as it could appear that the customer is applying to a bookmaker for credit?

[Archery1969]

I just thought I'd share something I read in yesterdays Racing Post. It appears that another leaked detail of the impending white paper is that there will be 'passive checks' 'which would go unnoticed by customers' where there was a net loss of £125 a month or £500 within a year. The checks would be carried out by credit reference agencies looking for issues such as county court judgements. More detailed checks would take place for losses of £1000 in 24 hours as well as for £2000 net loss over 90 days.

This raises a few issues. A net loss of £125 in a month would pretty much encompas all regular online punters. The article says the credibility checks would be looking for things like county court judgements. It must surely going to cost operators a fortune to have all their customers monitored?

Also as I understand it credit reference agencies also keep details of customer payments for things like loans and credit payments, even mobile phone contracts so not sure if that would be included or trigger an alarm if a customer was late with a bill.

If a loss of £1000 in 24 hours triggers an alarm what will happen at the top meetings like Cheltenham, Royal Ascot etc where 1000s of punters like to have big bets? Perhaps the 'affordability checks' will identify those punters in advance anyway so they would carry on as usual?

You need a customers Consent before doing a hard credit search to find out about CCJ’s etc. They may find allot of punters refuse the consent.

Yes! I'd forgotten about that. This is why loan companies always ask if the applicant agrees to a credit check before going ahead with the application. So presumably the online operators will ask their customers if they agree to credit checks and many may refuse as you say.

Another thing I'm wondering is whether these are going to be 'soft' credit checks which don't leave a footprint on the customer's credit file otherwise their files will be inundated with checks.If they are not 'soft' checks and appear on record will this affect credit applications as it could appear that the customer is applying to a bookmaker for credit?

A soft credit search only returns a credit score. No further details are provided about why its low, medium or high. If you want details about CCJ's, defaults, fraud or a HMRC red flag then you need to do a hard credit search which leaves a record of the search on file.

To me this is all wrong, yes, soft search is fine. But we are not trying to obtain credit and therefore I personally would not want them doing a hard search even though I have nothing to hide. Some will say, whats the problem, well, i suspect that if a hard search is done then other companies will be able to tell if you are gambling. As we know, friends, family and financial institutions wont/dont understand sports trading or value betting as many on here do. They will just think this person has a gambling problem and therefore we not giving them a loan, mortgage, unsurance paid monthly etc.

Anything that leaves a mark on your credit file can come back to haunt you further down the line. Also, many on-line casino's operate offshore and will not be captured by this legislation. I suspect allot of people in the past gambled this way, lost everything and in some cases committed suicide. So how does this legislation stop that exactly ?

[Hepburn]

You need a customers Consent before doing a hard credit search to find out about CCJ’s etc. They may find allot of punters refuse the consent.

Yes! I'd forgotten about that. This is why loan companies always ask if the applicant agrees to a credit check before going ahead with the application. So presumably the online operators will ask their customers if they agree to credit checks and many may refuse as you say.

Another thing I'm wondering is whether these are going to be 'soft' credit checks which don't leave a footprint on the customer's credit file otherwise their files will be inundated with checks.If they are not 'soft' checks and appear on record will this affect credit applications as it could appear that the customer is applying to a bookmaker for credit?

A soft credit search only returns a credit score. No further details are provided about why its low, medium or high. If you want details about CCJ's, defaults, fraud or a HMRC red flag then you need to do a hard credit search which leaves a record of the search on file.

To me this is all wrong, yes, soft search is fine. But we are not trying to obtain credit and therefore I personally would not want them doing a hard search even though I have nothing to hide. Some will say, whats the problem, well, i suspect that if a hard search is done then other companies will be able to tell if you are gambling. As we know, friends, family and financial institutions wont/dont understand sports trading or value betting as many on here do. They will just think this person has a gambling problem and therefore we not giving them a loan, mortgage, unsurance paid monthly etc.

Anything that leaves a mark on your credit file can come back to haunt you further down the line. Also, many on-line casino's operate offshore and will not be captured by this legislation. I suspect allot of people in the past gambled this way, lost everything and in some cases committed suicide. So how does this legislation stop that exactly ?

I believe soft searches are only visible to yourself.

[Trap1]

There's been a couple of articles in the Racing Post over the last few days regarding the impending 'white paper' and it's delay due to recent events.

In yesterday's article there's an interesting quote 'The Racing Post understands that a proposal contained in the white paper places the threshold for enhanced checks at a net loss of £2000 over a 90 day period'.

A 2K loss over 90 days is a fair amount for most people and probably warrants checks in today's climate. But if anything over £125 in losses a month triggers checks there's going to be a hell of a lot of checking. Has anyone had Betfair contact them about affordability checks?