Betfair Monthly Limit Email Received Today

[Derek27]

Is there a new centralised accounting body to make sure people don't have a grand with every big bookie and independent? If so where's the form people sign to opt out of the DPA?

Good point. That seems totally unforceable to me

It's like chemists restricting people from buying too many paracetamols, even though they know you can buy more from another pharmacy.
As long as they've done their bit and ticked their box, that's all that matters

Off-topic, but apparently most people who attempt suicide by swallowing paracetamol do it on the spur of the moment and head straight to their medicine cabinet, rather than purposely plan to go out and by them. The idea was if they only have half a box they'll just swallow them and then go to hospital. It's actually made a reduction in suicides.

[ANGELS15]

Is there a new centralised accounting body to make sure people don't have a grand with every big bookie and independent? If so where's the form people sign to opt out of the DPA?

I raised a similar point a few days ago. Also what happens when bookies/exchanges are part of a group. If the OP also has an account with Paddy Power and Skybet (who as far as I know are in the same ownership group) will his £1k deposit limit apply to each account with the 3 operators or will he be restricted to £333.33 with each one?

I think it's important to know rather than find out you're restricted at a time you need to hedge a trade. Another query was will customers have to declare all their accounts with other firms to each operator?

So far this doesn't seem to be happening also Betdaq don't appear to be restricting customers much at present.

On another note but still connected, I'm constantly getting emails from Betfair 'we've noticed a change in your betting recently', 'You've deposited more than usual recently', 'You've been online for several hours... maybe you should take a break'....''try our responsible gambling tools'.

There's not been any change in the way I use my Betfair account. My balance fluctuates and sometimes when my balance has increased significantly i'll slightly increase me stakes but not drastically. growing my stakes from £8 to £18 over 2 months is enough to get nanny Betfair sending me these emails. It's nothing that hasn't happened many times in the past.

[WisdomOfCrowds]

Here's an extract from the Information Commisioner's Office regarding Single Customer View:

The Information Commissioner’s Office response to recommendations by the House of Lords Gambling Industry Select Committee in their Report on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry.

Single Customer View (SCV)

Currently, decisions on interventions to prevent harm to a customer are made unilaterally by operators, with no awareness of the customer’s behaviour on accounts they hold elsewhere, resulting in a limited understanding of whether a customer is at risk of harm or not.

A solution has been suggested by the Gambling Commission in relation to its proposals for a Single Customer View (SCV). SCV proposes that standardised data points about a customer are collected by operators, measured against an industry-agreed standardised risk score, to produce an accurate, real time assessment of whether a customer is at risk of harm. This proposed approach would utilise data already routinely processed by operators when managing relationships with their online customers.

The innovation within SCV is the intention to identify multiple accounts held by the same individual - across all operators - enabling the risk score to reflect a 360 degree view of an individual’s activity. The Gambling Commission has made it very clear to the ICO in our discussions that the identification of multiple accounts is crucial to the prevention of harm related to gambling. Most customers hold five or more accounts with a range of operators, who base their decisions on a limited view of the customer’s account activity. A customer at a high level of risk may have an account restricted with one operator and another opened or raised to VIP status with another. This communication failure between operators regarding their customers currently has had tragic, even fatal outcomes, for customers, their families and their communities.

All gambling operators routinely share their customers’ data to a third party to meet their anti-money-laundering and fraud prevention obligations. Data sharing to protect their customers from harm should therefore not be a lower priority, nor more controversial, than fraud prevention measures.

An innovation of this nature merits careful consideration of data protection compliance and a public conversation regarding why the processing is being considered. The Gambling Commission has informed the ICO that the reasons
why these steps are being considered will be presented to the public. Their current consultation on affordability2 is a part of this dialogue.

GDPR and the DPA 2018 have been cited as the reason personal data cannot be shared for measures such as Single Customer View. As stated in the evidence3 the ICO previously gave to the House of Lords Select Committee, this is not the case. Data protection law should not be considered a barrier to sharing, instead it should be viewed as a framework of safeguards to ensure fair, lawful and proportionate data sharing. Data protection law should not, for example, be cited as a barrier to sharing when it is necessary to protect the vital interests of an individual.

[Derek27]

GDPR and the DPA 2018 have been cited as the reason personal data cannot be shared for measures such as Single Customer View. As stated in the evidence3 the ICO previously gave to the House of Lords Select Committee, this is not the case. Data protection law should not be considered a barrier to sharing, instead it should be viewed as a framework of safeguards to ensure fair, lawful and proportionate data sharing. Data protection law should not, for example, be cited as a barrier to sharing when it is necessary to protect the vital interests of an individual.

I wonder if their algorithm would account for arbing. If a customer loses £1000 with Betfair and wins £1200 with bookies will they view that customer as profitable or highly risky?

In the interest of fairness, they should implement an appeal system.

[RoyJay]

GDPR and the DPA 2018 have been cited as the reason personal data cannot be shared for measures such as Single Customer View. As stated in the evidence3 the ICO previously gave to the House of Lords Select Committee, this is not the case. Data protection law should not be considered a barrier to sharing, instead it should be viewed as a framework of safeguards to ensure fair, lawful and proportionate data sharing. Data protection law should not, for example, be cited as a barrier to sharing when it is necessary to protect the vital interests of an individual.

That is disgraceful, in my opinion.

Data protection law is there to protect peoples data.

No wonder 90% of customers are refusing (quite rightly) to comply, it’s clearly illegal, and they want to break data laws, to give the bookmakers even more data and power.

Surely this is going to lead to legal challenges, they can’t break data laws, all in the name of ‘ safer gambling’.

It isn’t at all necessary, and is full of grey areas (especially with sports betting).

The online casinos are doing all the damage, just ban them, or reduce them severely, 20/50p maximum spin, £20/£50 maximum jackpots. If people want escapism and want to numb their minds playing slots, make sure they can only do so for pennies.

Leave sports bettors and their data alone. Or face a full exodus to the grey/black markets. No punter wants this, they need to listen to the consumer.

[ShaunWhite]

No wonder 90% of customers are refusing.

Have you got a citation for that number? Or do you know what percentage of customers have been asked for proof of affordability?

And generally does anyone know what proportion of Betfair turnover is provided by people regularly losing >£1k a month?

[RoyJay]

No wonder 90% of customers are refusing.

Have you got a citation for that number? Or do you know what percentage of customers have been asked for proof of affordability?

And generally does anyone know what proportion of Betfair turnover is provided by people regularly losing >£1k a month?

I don’t have a citation. I read it in the racing post. I’ve no idea how accurate it is, how many people got surveyed, how many people have been asked etc.

90% may be on the high side, though I’d be surprised if it was much below 75% myself. Judging by the reaction, I’d be surprised if more than 1 in 4 were willing to submit all their financial details and face a full financial interrogation and audit just to bet. Maybe the 90 % is correct?

I’ve no faith in any of the studies and statistics being banded around by either side to be honest. They all just seem to be based on bad data, or bad interpretation of it.

Though the 90% wouldn’t shock me that much at present. As the checks are currently selective and not being rolled out widely. All that is happening at present is that people are saying no, and then going to a different operator, until that operator asks them, and then they say no , and go to a different operator etc.

Though once they run out of operators, or if they roll it out more widely as law, or try to impose that single customer view thing, then people are going to start looking at other options to bet. There are plenty of crypto exchange betting options being posted on this forum on a regular basis. I wouldn’t really fancy any of them myself, but if I’m given no other choice, then I suppose I have to.

[ShaunWhite]

I’d be surprised if more than 1 in 4 were willing to submit all their financial details and face a full financial interrogation and audit just to bet.

I haven't seen any numbers about how many people lose more than a grand a month and would be checked let alone a reliable number for people who decline.

.... Presumably placing a bet at the bookies now means quoting a user id and a pin number? Having to have an account seems to be a detergent to casual walk-in punters as much as checks.

[Archery1969]

What happens when I want to place a bet at a race track, do they run a check before accepting my wager ?

[ShaunWhite]

Seems like the avg UK net disposable income is £890 (which seems like a lot) ...removing say half of that for other forms of entertainment and expenses then Average Joe has about £100 a week to play with? Surely a £1000 a month limit isn't going to affect many, especially as its the lower end of the pay scale who are drawn to gambling the most?

[Derek27]

Seems like the avg UK net disposable income is £890 (which seems like a lot) ...removing say half of that for other forms of entertainment and expenses then Average Joe has about £100 a week to play with? Surely a £1000 a month limit isn't going to affect many, especially as its the lower end of the pay scale who are drawn to gambling the most?

It's wrong if it affects one person is that person is me!

[RoyJay]

Seems like the avg UK net disposable income is £890 (which seems like a lot) ...removing say half of that for other forms of entertainment and expenses then Average Joe has about £100 a week to play with? Surely a £1000 a month limit isn't going to affect many, especially as its the lower end of the pay scale who are drawn to gambling the most?

I dont know if you’re being rhetorical again, or genuinely asking the question.

Though nobody should be committing to losing a set amount every month, that’s just ridiculous, people gamble to win. I can sort of see how it would work with online slots, as it’s the more you play , the more you lose.

Sports is completely different. You win one week, lose the next. Win with one bookmaker, lose with another. There are loads of grey areas within sports betting that make the limits unworkable.

I think the main issue is that average joe doesn’t want a full intrusion into his personal financial data, just so he can have a bet. It’s up to average joe to decide how much he can bet, not a betting company or the government.

The other issue is that once these checks are triggered, there are no actual rules for how they are then passed. For me personally, having affordability checks triggered , meant account closed.

Also, the average joe doesn’t even exist. Everybody is completely different in both their approach to betting, how they view it, their financial situation, their lifestyle etc etc.

It’s the one size fits all approach that caters for this imaginary joe that is causing all the problems. Too many people who have bet responsibly and enjoyed betting on sports all their lives are now getting caught up in this and having their accounts closed.

[ShaunWhite]

I dont know if you’re being rhetorical again, or genuinely asking the question. .

I'm completely agreeing with you about the intrusion, personal freedoms, ineffectiveness. etc. I'm just not sure about the actual pounds shillings and pence impact on the industry. Eg how many it will affect and what proportion of the market those people are. The PaddyPower share price has seen some decline after a small over hyping of an economic recovery but there certainly isn't a wholesale dumping.

Screenshot_20220730-133816_Chrome.jpg

[fish2]

Racing post article mentioning 90% refusing - https://www.racingpost.com/tipping/nap- ... ngs/550075

I've not had any emails from betfair about limits, and I've currently got 25,000 'betfair points'
Though with another online bookmaker, I clicked on the unsubscribe from the silly promotional emails and the next thing they sent was that I was now excluded from any bonuses...

[jamesedwards]

Though with another online bookmaker, I clicked on the unsubscribe from the silly promotional emails and the next thing they sent was that I was now excluded from any bonuses...

From a bookie's point of view they offer bonuses to drive traffic and front of mind. If you unsubscribe from promo emails their incentive to apply bonuses is significantly diminished.