Gambling Review White Paper update

[LordBobbin]

Well they're lifting restrictions on many of the smaller casinos, allowing them to increase the number of machines from 20 to 80!! Oh, and they're giving casinos the ability to start offering sports betting, and making a whole bunch of new licences available to new casinos. So I guess we can expect an explosion of new shops designed to pull in addicts...

The paper is proposing imposing stake limits on online slots/casino games. However, even the lowest option will be £2 a go, which still lets a slot player go through about £350 in an hour - more if they're playing one of the faster casino games. And that's just assuming they go with the lowest option of £2. The 'maximum' could be as high as £15 a go...

In short, it looks like it'll do little to tackle the slot/casino machine players, even though they're the ones who experience most of the problems - indeed, the vastly enhanced facilities for casinos will likely lead to an increase in slots/machine users!! Racing punters and poker players, on the other hand, will be ground into dust if they want to make decent money on betting, but don't have a big salary to back it up. (As though the amount you make in your day job has any bearing whatsoever on your ability to spot a good bet.)

Why couldn't they have just given an extra option of settling for a restricted deposit limit? I'd be prepared to accept a deposit limit of £100, or even £50 a month, if it meant I could let my bet size increase with my bank.

[Archangel]

£125 loss per month being called a moderate loss is hilarious. Buying a printed version of racing post every day will get you to £119.7 a month

[xtrader16]

Ive said this before and I will say it again. Its none of the Governments fkin business where and when I spend my money. If I want to lose it all gambling it is none of their business. Stop sticking your oar into peoples lives this is Communist Party behaviour. 20,000 a year die from Alcohol related disease every year and yet they do NOTHING to prevent this , infact they actively encourage drinking. Total hipocracy. Stay out of peoples lives. This is not China its the UK.

[On_The_Edge]

If these proposed checks in the white paper go ahead, how long do you think before it will be made into legislation and Betfair actually implements them? Are we talking short weeks or many months / a year at least?

[Simoba]

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.

This is exactly right. I had "only" 14k in my account when it was suspended for 3 or 4 weeks, but I knew others had 5 times or more than that in their accounts. I had to provide so many documents that it could be considered extremely intrusive, however I now have an agreed maximum monthly spend limit, which is far in excess of what I need on my currently profitable trading account. It is done and dusted now, "out of the way" as you suggest and I just accept that this is the new world in which we live and operate.

[Simoba]

Well they're lifting restrictions on many of the smaller casinos, allowing them to increase the number of machines from 20 to 80!! Oh, and they're giving casinos the ability to start offering sports betting, and making a whole bunch of new licences available to new casinos. So I guess we can expect an explosion of new shops designed to pull in addicts...

The paper is proposing imposing stake limits on online slots/casino games. However, even the lowest option will be £2 a go, which still lets a slot player go through about £350 in an hour - more if they're playing one of the faster casino games. And that's just assuming they go with the lowest option of £2. The 'maximum' could be as high as £15 a go...

In short, it looks like it'll do little to tackle the slot/casino machine players, even though they're the ones who experience most of the problems - indeed, the vastly enhanced facilities for casinos will likely lead to an increase in slots/machine users!! Racing punters and poker players, on the other hand, will be ground into dust if they want to make decent money on betting, but don't have a big salary to back it up. (As though the amount you make in your day job has any bearing whatsoever on your ability to spot a good bet.)

Why couldn't they have just given an extra option of settling for a restricted deposit limit? I'd be prepared to accept a deposit limit of £100, or even £50 a month, if it meant I could let my bet size increase with my bank.

In my case, they did have a restricted monthly spend limit. I provided documents showing my savings / investments etc and based on that, a monthly spend limit was agreed,. To be honest, apart from the initial bad handling of this a couple of years ago, Betfair have been extremely fair in dealing with my account and I fully understand their position in the current climate.

[sionascaig]

From the Tote:

"Having had months of speculation about what it would contain, there are few surprises in the White Paper and we welcome the balance struck between consumer freedoms and protection of the vulnerable. For example, it is encouraging to have greater clarity on affordability levels which align with the approach we are already taking.

The table at the bottom of this email sets out the main changes relevant to the Tote, along with the next steps as outlined in the White Paper. Crucially, a White Paper does not change anything overnight. It will lead to further consultation by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Gambling Commission, following which we will have time to implement the detail of any additional changes. "

-------------------------------
Description of Change

Details of proposed changes for consultation

Next Steps
------------------------------
Affordability Checks

“Frictionless checks” on £125 net loss a month or £500 in a year

More detailed checks on £1,000 net loss in a day or £2,000 in 90 days

Gambling Commission consultation in summer 2023
------------------------------
Online Slot Stake Limits

Limit of between £2-15 per spin, reduced to £2-4 for 18–24-year-olds

DCMS Consultation in summer 2023
------------------------------
Game design

Review game speed and remove features which exacerbate risk

Assessment of initial impact of changes to make online slots safer by design in spring 2023, followed by Gambling Commission consultation in summer 2023
------------------------------
Gambling Commission

Review fees and powers to tackle black market

DCMS consultation on reviewing fees in 2024
------------------------------
Ombudsman

Creation of ombudsman to deal with disputes and appropriate redress for customers

Process for appointment to commence spring/ summer 2023. Expect the ombudsman to be accepting complaints within a year
------------------------------
Research, Education & Treatment Levy

Introduce a statutory levy of 1% GGY

DCMS consultation on design and scope in summer 2023
------------------------------
Horserace Betting Levy

Begin a review of the levy to ensure appropriate level of funding for racing is maintained

Stakeholder engagement, evidence gathering and analysis spring and summer 2023

[xtrader16]

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.

This is exactly right. I had "only" 14k in my account when it was suspended for 3 or 4 weeks, but I knew others had 5 times or more than that in their accounts. I had to provide so many documents that it could be considered extremely intrusive, however I now have an agreed maximum monthly spend limit, which is far in excess of what I need on my currently profitable trading account. It is done and dusted now, "out of the way" as you suggest and I just accept that this is the new world in which we live and operate.

What sort of attitude is that. "Got my pants pulled down by the Government/Betfair, now I am restricted in my trading but it doesnt matter because I am currently profitable". What about everybody else who is starting off on their trading journey or those who make the odd mistake. You accepting what you are instructed to do by the Government just because you are all right and pulling the draw bridge up after you is terrible was to think. This is what is wrong with our society everybody just looks after themselves and they can't see past the end of their own nose.

[xtrader16]

Affordability checks after £500 of annual losses is laughable. My average stake is £250. So, 2 losses and they start investigating my income. Its none of their business.

[LordBobbin]

In my case, they did have a restricted monthly spend limit. I provided documents showing my savings / investments etc and based on that, a monthly spend limit was agreed,. To be honest, apart from the initial bad handling of this a couple of years ago, Betfair have been extremely fair in dealing with my account and I fully understand their position in the current climate.

Well It's nice that you're pleased about it, but as far as I'm concerned that sounds awful. I don't know what kind of position you were in, and perhaps you were an inveterate gambler hurtling through their money, and it was a good thing that BF saved you from yourself. However, my suspicion is that that wasn't the case at all. I would imagine that you were a perfectly stable bettor on decent stakes, and you suddenly got hit by a losing spell that led to you being picked up by BF's filters. It sounds like you were then forced to hand over details of various private financial arrangements, and you were kindly allowed to spend a smaller portion of your own money on your hobby.

And you're pleased about that???

I'm with Xtrader here. If I've taken money that's in my bank account, and transferred it to my BF account, it's my business what I do with it. It shouldn't matter what I'm paid, or what investments I have.

Now, I can sort of understand that the bookies might be compelled to intervene if I'm showing signs of being in the middle of a frenzied betting addiction. (I don't approve of that nannying attitude, but I can see why some would go along with it.) However, the rules as they have been laid out will catch hordes of experienced bettors who are dealing in decent stakes and who are in perfect control of their betting, but who get hit by a perfectly standard run of adverse bets. Those bettors had then better have some good investments or a high salary, or they'll be forced to cut back. And why? If I build up a substantial bank, but give back 20% of it during a poor run, why suddenly have to agree to my stakes being cut back to almost non-existent stakes.

I'm sick and tired of my hobby getting me branded as some sort of deviant. The white paper talks about people spending £500 over the course of a year as though this is some utterly reprehensible misdeed from which we must all be saved. I know of almost nobody who hasn't splurged too much on their interest at some point - whether that's buying clothes, going to restaurants, spending too much on a car etc... And yet, gamblers are the ones constantly being rounded on, despite the fact that only a very small number have serious problems. (And most of those are slots or casino players.)

The bookies know which ones are the problem gamblers. They'll be the ones suddenly putting on bet after bet on a range of different markets - and usually with constantly increasing stake sizes. They'll do that until their bank has gone, and then they'll redeposit and carry on doing the same thing until they're broke. However, my own betting is nothing like that, and provided I can keep increasing my bank, I should be able to keep raising my stakes for as long as liquidity will allow. I shouldn't be living in fear of my account being shuttered simply because of some rules which will supposedly stop a few people who aren't able to help themselves.

[LordBobbin]

And just to be clear, I know that this isn't the fault of Betfair per se. It's just the general climate around betting, and a process that has seen a shrewd gambling industry meeting with an utterly clueless rabble of government ministers.

[BFDon]

Ive said this before and I will say it again. Its none of the Governments fkin business where and when I spend my money. If I want to lose it all gambling it is none of their business. Stop sticking your oar into peoples lives this is Communist Party behaviour. 20,000 a year die from Alcohol related disease every year and yet they do NOTHING to prevent this , infact they actively encourage drinking. Total hipocracy. Stay out of peoples lives. This is not China its the UK.

It's not your money they are concerned about. If you can afford it then in all likelihood you will pass the checks (and you might not even know the checks have happened).

[BFDon]

In my case, they did have a restricted monthly spend limit. I provided documents showing my savings / investments etc and based on that, a monthly spend limit was agreed,. To be honest, apart from the initial bad handling of this a couple of years ago, Betfair have been extremely fair in dealing with my account and I fully understand their position in the current climate.

Well It's nice that you're pleased about it, but as far as I'm concerned that sounds awful. I don't know what kind of position you were in, and perhaps you were an inveterate gambler hurtling through their money, and it was a good thing that BF saved you from yourself. However, my suspicion is that that wasn't the case at all. I would imagine that you were a perfectly stable bettor on decent stakes, and you suddenly got hit by a losing spell that led to you being picked up by BF's filters. It sounds like you were then forced to hand over details of various private financial arrangements, and you were kindly allowed to spend a smaller portion of your own money on your hobby.

And you're pleased about that???

I'm with Xtrader here. If I've taken money that's in my bank account, and transferred it to my BF account, it's my business what I do with it. It shouldn't matter what I'm paid, or what investments I have.

What's awful about it exactly? You think the person (if it is even a person) checking your 'private financial arrangements' cares about you or what you are spending your money on beyond checking you can afford it based on your incomings/outgoings. Money in your bank account doesn't tell the full story, it could be a loan you need to pay back.

If running checks on me or getting me to send in some documents means 1 more problem gambler is saved then i'm more than willing to do that

[LordBobbin]

What's awful about it exactly? You think the person (if it is even a person) checking your 'private financial arrangements' cares about you or what you are spending your money on beyond checking you can afford it based on your incomings/outgoings. Money in your bank account doesn't tell the full story, it could be a loan you need to pay back.

If running checks on me or getting me to send in some documents means 1 more problem gambler is saved then i'm more than willing to do that

Well if a bank was prepared to loan some money to somebody, particularly in this day and age - I'm aware things were far more lax pre-2008, for instance - then that ought to be enough. Of the people I've met, at least half are rather uncontrolled in their spending, but it's only if they're a gambler that they're told that their spending needs to be vetted. (You can pour as much money as you like into buying drinks or cigarettes, and nobody will insist on seeing your wage packet!)

And to combat the few who can get around bank lending rules, I have also conceded that a restriction on deposits (of, say, £50 or £100 a month) should be an option. Or, alternatively, if somebody can show that they started with, say, a deposit of a couple or hundred or so, and have turned that into a much larger sum, that should be enough. That person shouldn't have to show any evidence of pay-cheques, investments etc. just because they had a short run of bets against them. If somebody can keep building their bankroll, and keep increasing their stakes in line with that, at some point they're going to fall foul of these rules. Why should that person be told they've got to reduce their stakes to a tiny fraction just because they hit some magic number that the govt ministers pulled off the tops of their heads.

And I wouldn't be quite so angry if I believed in the last part of your post. Because whatever these rules will do, they won't be cutting the number of problem gamblers. Despite what the press would have you believe, the UK now has one of the lowest percentages of problem gamblers internationally. However, if they want to reduce that number further, they need to target the real problem - slots and casino machines. At least half of all problem gamblers are primarily playing those infernal devices. The machines are carefully designed to be fiendishly addictive, and to pull in gullible people who'll probably never realise that it's actually mathematically impossible to not lose money on them over the longer term. So what's being done to counter these???

All the white paper does is to talk about stake limits on online slots/casino games that could be as low as £2 a time. £2 a time means you can still spend around £340 in an hour if you're doing the slots, and around half as much again if you're doing faster casino machines. If the gullible wish to get themselves addicted to those games, they can still go through lots and lots of money. (The white paper even quotes one operator saying that of the members they would class as being at risk, 41% of them stake only 25p a time!!) It wouldn't surprise me, by the way, if the maximum stake ends up being a bit higher than £2 - £15 is suggested as another option!! However, even £2 would allow for a lot of pain.

And the white paper very much bolsters the land casinos/betting shops, who will be quadruple the number of machines in their small to mid-level stores. Extra betting facilities will be given to casinos, and the number of licences granted will escalate. (The white paper actually tries to make a virtue of these expanded powers!)

I'm quite sure the government ministers mean well, but they've been spectacularly outplayed by the much smarter betting industry. The latter realised that the regulations would have to change, and so they might as well ensure that whatever changes were made would be beneficial to their bottom line. The white paper will give them licence to dramatically roll out slots/casinos etc with which to prey on the problem gamblers, while still allowing them to make plenty from the mugs addicted to the online games. Sports betting and other areas that, theoretically, can be beaten by a skilled or careful player are much less important to their bottom line, though. High rollers will be fine, as they add plenty of liquidity with which to attract the fish. However, the ones in the middle will now constantly be in the firing line. If you can build your bankroll and turn yourself into a winning player, you're almost certain to be picked up by the new rules. At that point, the betting companies can decide how much they wish to restrict you by. And if you haven't got a really good salary, they've got the perfect excuse for restricting you to buttons. Professional gamblers are more or less toast as the result of this white paper. Believe me, it's really not about helping the addicts...

I'm off to do some work now, so I won't be clogging up the forum with another of these long posts!!! Rant over

[Archangel]

Ive said it before, but the idea of sending personal financial information to a Bookmaker does not sit comfortably with me. How many people would have access to the information? Bookmakers arent financial institutions who have protocols and standards in place for handling this type of data.