More bad news...(affordability and that jazz)

[blablok]

Dont wanna be a bearer of bad news but...

"Aside from the enhanced checks triggered by a £2,000 loss over 90 days, which were reported by the Racing Post last week, government proposals also include background checks once a punter records a net loss of £125 a month or £500 in a year."

£125 loss ...A MONTH !!!

Source:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/ ... _term=Null

[Euler]

My understanding is that you get a soft check at that point. But the limits are higher for a real check. Still a farce.

[blablok]

Someone on fb says that a Pro punter who works for racing tv was asked to send in docs and given a 1k a month limit...LOL

[zippus]

Betfair has been hiring some Key Account Executives to deal with "risk managed clients". I suspect this will form part of their VIP Package and will result in these customers facing rigorous checks should further losses be incurred.


https://evoke.ie/inspire-jobs/job/key-a ... -betfair-1

[Hepburn]

So all good if your winning?

What if you have a one off bad month?

[blablok]

So all good if your winning?

What if you have a one off bad month?

If you are winning you will be paying 22%, 42%, 62% Premium Charge...Whooooray !
If you are losing you will be restricted....Whooooray !

[Hepburn]

So all good if your winning?

What if you have a one off bad month?

If you are winning you will pay 22%, 42%, 62% Premium Charge...Whooooray !
If you are losing you will be restricted....Whooooray !

But isn't this shooting themselves in the foot?
How can they make money with a premium charge if they put in restrictions?

[zippus]

So all good if your winning?

What if you have a one off bad month?

If you are winning you will pay 22%, 42%, 62% Premium Charge...Whooooray !
If you are losing you will be restricted....Whooooray !

It does feel that the powers at be (either at BF or in the Government) don't want anyone to succeed on the betting markets anymore. It's the society we're living in nowadays - ever more state control and intervention under the guise of paternalistic caring. Yet it's inconsistent because I fail to see such restrictions enforced when trading stocks and shares or other markets such as FX and cryptocurrency.

[blablok]

So all good if your winning?

What if you have a one off bad month?

If you are winning you will pay 22%, 42%, 62% Premium Charge...Whooooray !
If you are losing you will be restricted....Whooooray !

It does feel that the powers at be (either at BF or in the Government) don't want anyone to succeed on the betting markets anymore. It's the society we're living in nowadays - ever more state control and intervention under the guise of paternalistic caring. Yet it's inconsistent because I fail to see such restrictions enforced when trading stocks and shares or other markets such as FX and cryptocurrency.

£125 loss a month but you will still be able to spend thousands on alcoholic addiction
Never mind that it could destroy your life and your whole family .
Peter says its just a soft check in his opinion...time will tell.
UK is turning into marxist Chinese state if they decide to follow that route.
Cameras are everywhere already

[ShaunWhite]

What would the press do without "proposals"?

[Hepburn]

I think they should leave the winners alone!

I do agree that for some people gambling can become an unhealthy interest.

Why not restrict losers by how much they can put into their account, leave those alone who have healthy accounts.


Its gonna have bigger implications tho isn't it? Probably very damaging to our oldest greatest sport in the country, horse racing!

[jamesedwards]

The £125 per month or £500 per year is a soft credit check to make sure you are who you say you are and have no red flags like county court judgements etc.

I've seen £2k per 90 days OR £1k per day mentioned. For most of us £2k per 90 days is not likely to be triggered but £1k in a day might, all it takes is a bad run or slip of the finger.

[Archery1969]

Probably going to be allot of people selling BF accounts.

[Hepburn]

The £125 per month or £500 per year is a soft credit check to make sure you are who you say you are and have no red flags like county court judgements etc.

I've seen £2k per 90 days OR £1k per day mentioned. For most of us £2k per 90 days is not likely to be triggered but £1k in a day might, all it takes is a bad run or slip of the finger.

I don't think a soft credit check will show CCJ's.

[Archery1969]

A soft credit search only reveals your credit score. No further details or breakdown of the score are revealed.

But the score by itself can highlight you have/had credit issues.

Example: A score less than 500 shows you probably shouldn’t be gambling etc.

But it can be misleading because someone who is retired and had no credit in the past 6 years will probably unfairly get a low score etc.