Gambling Review White Paper update

[Michael5482]

I wish they'd of just banned slots/online gaming full stop in all honesty, no time for them at all.

1% levy to the NHS on gambling profits is reasonable, pleased it's not been given to anti-gambling charities who'd use it to lobby for more reform.

Need to see the finer detail on the checks after loosing £1,000 a day over or £2,000 over 90 days, will net winnings be taken into account for example you've won £3000 on Monday then loose £1,000 Tuesday but £2,000 up in two days, what type of checks will be carried and who is going to carry them out etc

I'd of like to of seen the creation of an ombudsman for customers and GC reform included

[jimibt]

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

[Michael5482]

Racing Post reports financial checks for CCJ's and bankruptcy at a fixed loss of £125 in a day and full intrusive ones at the £1,000 or £2000 ones detailed.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/gamblin ... lo4Q8xJtQ/

[sionascaig]

Racing Post reports financial checks for CCJ's and bankruptcy at a fixed loss of £125 in a day and full intrusive ones at the £1,000 or £2000 ones detailed.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/gamblin ... lo4Q8xJtQ/

ffs - this thread could easy become rant central

[Michael5482]

Racing Post reports financial checks for CCJ's and bankruptcy at a fixed loss of £125 in a day and full intrusive ones at the £1,000 or £2000 ones detailed.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/gamblin ... lo4Q8xJtQ/

ffs - this thread could easy become rant central

The outcome doesn't appear to be favorable for gamblers.

Playing devils advocate there's been enough talk regarding financial checks and gambling so been plenty of time to prepare for them, once the dust settle gambling will go on and those who wish to carry on gambling will adapt accordingly.

[sniffer66]

I wish they'd of just banned slots/online gaming full stop in all honesty, no time for them at all.

1% levy to the NHS on gambling profits is reasonable, pleased it's not been given to anti-gambling charities who'd use it to lobby for more reform.

Need to see the finer detail on the checks after loosing £1,000 a day over or £2,000 over 90 days, will net winnings be taken into account for example you've won £3000 on Monday then loose £1,000 Tuesday but £2,000 up in two days, what type of checks will be carried and who is going to carry them out etc

I'd of like to of seen the creation of an ombudsman for customers and GC reform included

I was interested to see that the NHS has refused the 1% up until now, due to a "conflict of interest". I didn't realise the NHS had so much money it could afford to be picky. They are happy enough to fleece "customers" for parking fees (a huge bugbear of mine)

[aperson]

Looks like it could be a dark day. How is any of this going to work in practice? Politicians clearly don't understand, or aren't even aware of what we do here.

Does £1000 pounds in a day mean you won't ever be allowed more exposure than this? If so that scuppers a fair bit of trading, Basically max £100 lay at 10.0. It also totally ignores that when trading you aren't risking that whole amount, and all kinds of other strategies. I routinely "lose" several thousand in one market but have it hedged in another where I "win" thousands, is that dead now?

How do these checks even work, do you get a period after one where you don't have another for some time? It would be absurd to OK someone one day then they loose another grand and you do those checks all over again! Is the 90 day thing rolling, wouldn't make any sense if not. Is previous gambling income worth anything here, are assets worth anything, (based on previous posts probably not).

What's the outcome of these checks going to be? Are we looking at deposit limits, or is it stake/loss limits because they are completely different. I could live with deposit as you just keep more in your account but it would be crazy to have loss limits. Once the money is within a betting account and you are seen as capable of funding that what does it matter what up's and down's you have within that account?

Hopefully some of this is cleared up later but I'm not holding my breath that any of that's been thought through. IDS calling to skip a consultation period, I would love to know if he has answers to any of the practicalities of this since he thinks it's so easy to implement.

[Michael5482]

I wish they'd of just banned slots/online gaming full stop in all honesty, no time for them at all.

1% levy to the NHS on gambling profits is reasonable, pleased it's not been given to anti-gambling charities who'd use it to lobby for more reform.

Need to see the finer detail on the checks after loosing £1,000 a day over or £2,000 over 90 days, will net winnings be taken into account for example you've won £3000 on Monday then loose £1,000 Tuesday but £2,000 up in two days, what type of checks will be carried and who is going to carry them out etc

I'd of like to of seen the creation of an ombudsman for customers and GC reform included

I was interested to see that the NHS has refused the 1% up until now, due to a "conflict of interest". I didn't realise the NHS had so much money it could afford to be picky. They are happy enough to fleece "customers" for parking fees (a huge bugbear of mine)

Yes I picked up on that also which surprised me, how they came to that conclusion beggars belief. This is where the Government at the time should of stepped in and told them were care not in your conflict of interests and your taking the money.

[Emmson]

Cricket markets would die a quick death if no exposure allowed that exceeded £1K this is all very serious this ther money would go somewhere else but not in the UK.

[Euler]

Most of the cricket liquidity appears to be funneled in from greys markets, IMHO.

[Euler]

Before everybody loses it, remember that a white paper is a proposal. To go into law, it needs to get feedback, go through the committee stage and then be debated before it can go into law. Many things can change between the white paper and law, but some of that is down to you.

[LordBobbin]

It's going to take an awful lot to get government figures to change their minds about affordability checks at £1,000 per day etc. And many of the bookies will welcome such measures, as they'll catch out lots of winning punters. On the other hand, many bricks & mortar casinos will be able to ratchet up the numbers of machines, so we can expect an explosion of those to take in the gullible. And the restrictions on online slots etc. may well not be as stringent as they should be. (I suspect that's one area where you will see lots of lobbying from the bookies, with the result that slots are allowed to continue much as before.)

So many sensible bettors who make a living at this will be killed off, while the inveterate gambling types will have lots of new casinos, slot-based betting shops etc. to suck them in. And I doubt there'll be much that normal punters can do to make the government rethink what (in their minds) is a well-reasoned approach.

Also, none of this will be law for a good while yet, but based on what's been happening over the last year or two, we can expect many bookies to start imposing the £1,000 affordability checks long before any of this is set in stone.

[ShaunWhite]

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.

[Archangel]

The Big Punting Survey conducted by the Racing Post shows one in six punters have already been the subject of some form of affordability check. Of the 10,400 respondents, 3.6 per cent had said they had used the black market in the last 12 months with 11 per cent recording that they knew someone who had used it. A third of those surveyed said they would consider using unregulated markets if they were unable to bet what they wanted with regulated firms.

[Michael5482]

Before everybody loses it, remember that a white paper is a proposal. To go into law, it needs to get feedback, go through the committee stage and then be debated before it can go into law. Many things can change between the white paper and law, but some of that is down to you.

Which Ian Duncan Smith appears to be trying to circumvent and move it straight into legislation.

I've contacted my PM this morning.