Gambling Review White Paper update

[decomez6]

Both sides of the debate in Parlianment, but there are some good points being made.

- does GOD play dice ?

- are the laws of the Universe determined (by hidden variable )
OR are they probabilistic (Heisenberg uncertainity principle )

this was a big debate between Albert Einstein and the quantum physics proponents.

the matter is now settled .
Einstein was wrong ! GOD plays dice ¬its all probabilities and this was proven by the three scientists who jointly won the Nobel prize

the Nobel prize winners in physics 2022 https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/phys ... /summary/

Parliament can discuss all they want ! BUT ¬ they will not mention what Trading is TRUELY all about !
Gods work!
bet the majority don't know what a Galton Board represent !
OPPORTUNITES in equal amounts to risks !

is it not the work of parliament to legislate and empower opportunities ?

let me stop before I write a whole essay

[Michael5482]

I don't get it tbh just about every Tory is completely against the Gambling White Paper as it is apart from a small handful including my MP so begs the question wtf they doing carrying on with it? And that's the consensus I'm getting.

Good debate though sounds like lots of lobbying has taken place as MP's seem a lot more educated on gambling, how flawed the proposals are and how it'll ruin racing obviously the likes of Carolyne Harris are never going to shift. I don't know racing has already took a 900 million pound hit for the year 22-23 with bookies implementing there own checks

[Euler]

SNP stance should be a grave concern for Scottish racing. They seem to want to throw them under the bus.

[decomez6]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DabniNPdhgg

E petition financial risk check for gambling


@ min 13 (3hr mark)

- 10 % gamblers delivers 80 % of revenue

- horse racing 5% deliver 85 % of revenue

meaning 95% of gamblers will share 15 % of the winnings and take 85 % of the losses

'

[sibur]

Does it mean that because alcoholic addiction causes catastrophic consequences for a percentage of drinkers that pubs are going to limit the number of drinks you can order or the number of cans you can buy at the supermarket? The silent majority who enjoy their tipple, in what ever form that takes, drinking, gambling, smoking or whatever will be denied? Those that need help, get it. The rest of us should be allowed to do whatever fills our miserable lives with a little bit of pleasure.

[Michael5482]

Does it mean that because alcoholic addiction causes catastrophic consequences for a percentage of drinkers that pubs are going to limit the number of drinks you can order or the number of cans you can buy at the supermarket? The silent majority who enjoy their tipple, in what ever form that takes, drinking, gambling, smoking or whatever will be denied? Those that need help, get it. The rest of us should be allowed to do whatever fills our miserable lives with a little bit of pleasure.

No it means we've heard just about every MP bar about 2 at the debate telling the Government their making a monumental mistake and the White Paper isn't fit for purpose along with how it'll have a detrimental effect on the economy with job losses due to the impact it'll have on racing but right at the end the Government said we ploughing on anyway but because we've really listened the checks won't need your job title or post code

[Euler]

Here is a transcript of the whole debate: -

https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20240226TIqPuel9

[Euler]

Here is a ChatGPT summary: -

The debate in Westminster Hall on February 26, 2024, primarily revolved around the topic of implementing affordability and financial risk checks for gambling. The discussion brought forth a range of perspectives:

Gambling Industry's Viewpoint: Representatives from the gambling industry expressed concerns that the proposed checks could be discriminatory and potentially drive gamblers towards unregulated, black market alternatives. They argued that the majority of gamblers gamble safely and within limits, and the checks might be an overreach affecting a small percentage of gamblers.

Reformers' Perspective: Advocates for the checks emphasized the need to protect vulnerable gamblers from the harms of addiction. They argued that affordability checks could prevent individuals from gambling beyond their means and potentially save lives. The focus was on early intervention and the importance of these checks in curbing harmful gambling habits.

Impact on Horse Racing: The debate also touched upon the potential impact of these checks on the horse racing industry. Concerns were raised about the financial stability of the industry, with some arguing that stringent regulations might negatively affect the revenue and popularity of horse racing.

Balancing Regulation with Individual Freedom: A significant part of the discussion revolved around finding a balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and respecting the freedom of individuals to gamble responsibly. The debate acknowledged the complexity of the issue, with various MPs emphasizing the need for careful consideration and targeted implementation of any new regulations.

Potential Implementation of Checks: There were suggestions to make the checks as 'frictionless' as possible, minimizing the inconvenience to gamblers while still achieving the intended protective measures. Discussions around the specifics of how these checks would be implemented, such as using publicly available data and setting appropriate thresholds for intervention, were also highlighted.

Public and Political Response: The debate reflected a wide range of opinions, demonstrating the controversial nature of the topic. There was a call for more inclusive policymaking, involving various stakeholders in the process to ensure that the policies developed are well-informed and effective.

In summary, the debate showcased the complex and multifaceted nature of the issue, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that protects vulnerable individuals without unnecessarily infringing on the rights of responsible gamblers. The need for clear, effective, and fair implementation of any new regulations was a common thread throughout the discussions.

[aperson]

Does it mean that because alcoholic addiction causes catastrophic consequences for a percentage of drinkers that pubs are going to limit the number of drinks you can order or the number of cans you can buy at the supermarket? The silent majority who enjoy their tipple, in what ever form that takes, drinking, gambling, smoking or whatever will be denied? Those that need help, get it. The rest of us should be allowed to do whatever fills our miserable lives with a little bit of pleasure.

No it means we've heard just about every MP bar about 2 at the debate telling the Government their making a monumental mistake and the White Paper isn't fit for purpose along with how it'll have a detrimental effect on the economy with job losses due to the impact it'll have on racing but right at the end the Government said we ploughing on anyway but because we've really listened the checks won't need your job title or post code

That's a fair summary. It did seem like there really wasn't much support for it but not sure if that'll make a difference or not. I thought it was interesting that even Ian Duncan Smith said account turnover data was a poor way to assess affordability. Hopefully after this pilot they'll just be looking at credit scores as that's got to be a better measure of financial distress.

[CloseBets]

When are the checks supposed to be implemented?

Fingers crossed it doesn't have too large an impact on available 'mug' money coming into the exchange and simply raises the bar for entry for newer traders to lessen competition for whatever money is left for us all.

[Archery1969]

When are the checks supposed to be implemented?

Fingers crossed it doesn't have too large an impact on available 'mug' money coming into the exchange and simply raises the bar for entry for newer traders to lessen competition for whatever money is left for us all.

So called mug money will be the first to go as they are more likely to be in serious financial trouble.

I understand you and others want to make a profit but calling them mugs doesn’t paint a very good picture of the betting world and therefore this forum now does it ?

[Derek27]

Recreation gamblers, people backing their own team regardless of price that we provide a service for, would be a better term.

[Michael5482]

Does anyone know what the actual consequnces are if you fail one of these checks?

Will you banned from a perfectly legal past time or restricted and told by the Goverment how much of your own money your allowed to spend or will the draconian legisltion be met with draconian punishment and your took to your local market square and flogged as a deterent to others who are thinking of spending their own money how they wish?

[jamesedwards]

Does anyone know what the actual consequnces are if you fail one of these checks?

Will you banned from a perfectly legal past time or restricted and told by the Goverment how much of your own money your allowed to spend or will the draconian legisltion be met with draconian punishment and your took to your local market square and flogged as a deterent to others who are thinking of spending their own money how they wish?

If you fail the initial automatic 'seamless' check then the Operator will be obliged to conduct a manual review or close/strictly limit the account. This is where bank statements and payslips etc will probably come back into play. I don't know how they plan to handle accounts where such proof is refused or not sufficient, but currently Betfair seem to be limiting accounts to £100 per month until proof is satisfied.

There was talk of a 'single customer view' approach that would force all operators to act as one, but it feels like this is taking a back seat for now.

[Michael5482]

Does anyone know what the actual consequnces are if you fail one of these checks?

Will you banned from a perfectly legal past time or restricted and told by the Goverment how much of your own money your allowed to spend or will the draconian legisltion be met with draconian punishment and your took to your local market square and flogged as a deterent to others who are thinking of spending their own money how they wish?

If you fail the initial automatic 'seamless' check then the Operator will be obliged to conduct a manual review or close/strictly limit the account. This is where bank statements and payslips etc will probably come back into play. I don't know how they plan to handle accounts where such proof is refused or not sufficient, but currently Betfair seem to be limiting accounts to £100 per month until proof is satisfied.

There was talk of a 'single customer view' approach that would force all operators to act as one, but it feels like this is taking a back seat for now.

Cheers James I suppose this is what the independent regulator which was promised would oversee but we've not heard anything further about that either. Nothing frictionless about it then come the end of the day.

Government are full of shit.