Gambling Review White Paper update

[jamesedwards]

And I doubt there'll be much that normal punters can do to make the government rethink.

The election can't come soon enough, say what you like about Gordon Brown but he removed the 9% betting tax and that made all our jobs a possibility. Tories want to remove even your ability to try.

You keep saying this but given the Conservative philosophy is free market and personal freedom, I would expect the inevitable regulatory restrictions would be much tighter under a Labour government who traditionally focus more on social responsibility. I'm hoping this bill is completed before the next election.

[Emmson]

Is it immoral to want to want to keep recreational punters and mug punters and serial losers on the exchange?

These developments will drive more of them away and consequently make it harder to turn a profit.

[jamesedwards]

Is it immoral to want to want to keep recreational punters and mug punters and serial losers on the exchange?

These developments will drive more of them away and consequently make it harder to turn a profit.

This is true as, inevitably, losing players will be more likely to fall foul of affordability checks. But as long as it's applied appropriately it should protect the most vulnerable from losses they can't afford, while losing players with a suitable income will pass affordability checks. I would rather be taking money from someone who can afford it than someone who can not.

When I have spoken to Betfair reps they have been clear they expect the self-applied measures already in place to have already taken the brunt of any liquidity impact to the Exchange.

[jamesedwards]

The way I expect this to work is not a problem for most on here.

> Once you breach the low threshold loss of £125 the operator is obliged to conduct a soft credit file check to look for any obvious signs of financial distress such as bankruptcy/CCJs etc.
> Once you breach the high threshold loss of £1000 per day or £2000 per 90 days the operator is obliged to conduct an affordability score via a credit agency to check the customer spend is reasonable compared to their debts and estimated income. I've already shared how Experian expect this to work earlier in this thread.

We don't yet know how Betfair will choose to manage the measure and frequency of the checks but my expectation is that Betfair will use their existing 'deposit limit' and 'exposure limit' systems to manage maximum losses based on the result of the affordable limit score.

My advice remains the same; make sure your credit score is managed as carefully as possible and if Betfair is your only income, try and regulate withdrawals consistently into your bank account. eg one similar payment on the same time every month so it looks like a salary. The credit agencies can see money going into and out of your bank account but not where it comes from or goes to.

[Naffman]

I have a deposit limit of £100 p/m but I currently have an exposure limit of 20k (makes no sense I know) so my suggestion would be is to try and keep as much money in BF as possible.

BF are easily the tightest in regards to the rules as with Smarkets and Betdaq I can deposit 4 figures in a day if I wanted to, same with bookmakers too so if they get even stricter then we’re all buggered.

But I have hope it’ll keep to how it is, but long term that’s still going to screw us.

[jamesedwards]

in a doomsday scenario, there might be pressure put on operators to introduce some sort of (default- with hidden optout) autoclose on positions if they are within a threshold that would tip the user into this grey area. in fact, i wouldn't put it past the operators to introduce this type of mechanism so as to both massage the stats and retain the customers!!

next steps - vps and account transfer to AUS

Doomsday for full-time Exchange traders would have been blanket maximum restrictions on sports betting stake and/or loss, or strict employment income thresholds. Fortunately both of these have been avoided (for now).

[Naffman]

107. Some call for evidence respondents viewed this practice as unfair towards
successful bettors, and raised concerns that it runs contrary to the licensing
objective that gambling should be ‘fair and open’, and therefore contributes to
the overall low public confidence in fairness and trustworthiness of British
gambling. Some specifically highlighted that restrictions could drive individuals
to gamble with unlicensed operators or to illegally use third-party accounts (for
example, in a family member’s name) to continue gambling in the licensed
sector. Some submissions provided evidence that only betting accounts were
restricted (because of the element of skill) whereas gaming accounts were
Chapter 1: Online protections – players and products
62
typically left unrestricted because of the statistically guaranteed return to
operators. This was criticised as allowing gamblers to keep losing, but never
win. We note that peer-to-peer betting exchanges and pool betting remain
available to restricted bettors, but respondents highlighted that exchange
accounts can be charged a high commission on winnings, which was seen
as particularly unfair given that operators do not assume liability for peer-topeer bets.

[Naffman]

107. Some call for evidence respondents viewed this practice as unfair towards
successful bettors, and raised concerns that it runs contrary to the licensing
objective that gambling should be ‘fair and open’, and therefore contributes to
the overall low public confidence in fairness and trustworthiness of British
gambling. Some specifically highlighted that restrictions could drive individuals
to gamble with unlicensed operators or to illegally use third-party accounts (for
example, in a family member’s name) to continue gambling in the licensed
sector. Some submissions provided evidence that only betting accounts were
restricted (because of the element of skill) whereas gaming accounts were
typically left unrestricted because of the statistically guaranteed return to
operators. This was criticised as allowing gamblers to keep losing, but never
win. We note that peer-to-peer betting exchanges and pool betting remain
available to restricted bettors, but respondents highlighted that exchange
accounts can be charged a high commission on winnings, which was seen
as particularly unfair given that operators do not assume liability for peer-topeer bets.

Last part...some good may come of it...I highly doubt it though

[jamesedwards]

Last part...some good may come of it...I highly doubt it though

Yeah, I LOL'd when I read that bit. Basically "there's evidence of this going on and we don't think it's fair but we're going to do feck all about it".

[ShaunWhite]

You keep saying this but given the Conservative philosophy is free market and personal freedom,

It is ! So I don't understand all this, it's part of the reason the Tory party is split between those who think that and what's actually happening. I don't feel any more free than I did 13yrs ago.

[MaxLiability]

That will kill arbing in the UK.

If that happens im moving to the black market.
Its their loss, not mine.

Only for a few, at the end of the day it's hard to see us pro punters avoiding an affordability check in the long run. And the way Betfair run their business it may be better to get that out of the way as soon as possible rather than them freeze your account when your sat with a large liability. I've known a few people lose out by having accounts frozen whilst some pointless check has been carried out.

And let's face it if you can't pass their affordability check it may well be you're overstretching yourself.

[ShaunWhite]

And the way Betfair run their business it may be better to get that out of the way as soon as possible rather than them freeze your account.

They recommend being proactive and letting them know what you do to help prevent you from being swept up by an algo. All this is as popular with them as it is with us and they'll work with you if at all possible. Not ideal, not guarenteed, but better than doing nothing. It also helps you to support your case if the automatic algos pick you out, planned behaviour can't be seen as problematic.

[jamesedwards]

You keep saying this but given the Conservative philosophy is free market and personal freedom,

It is ! So I don't understand all this, it's part of the reason the Tory party is split between those who think that and what's actually happening. I don't feel any more free than I did 13yrs ago.

We'll never know, of course, but my sense is the outcome would be much stricter restrictions under a Labour government. Therefore I'm in favour of getting it done and dusted asap.

[Archangel]

Are they doing anything significant about the products that really produce problem gamblers, like online Casino, slots etc?

[ShaunWhite]

We'll never know, of course, but my sense is the outcome would be much stricter restrictions under a Labour government. Therefore I'm in favour of getting it done and dusted asap.

I'd give you even money on that to be fair. But Labour would be wise to not to crap on their core support, the blue collar punting classes. From what I know they'd be more in favour of advertising and sponsorship bans.