How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.
So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.
Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.
I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?
Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?
Really?
In horse racing 30-35% of favourites win - that means 65-70% lose. Bookmakers don't need any help getting favourites beat and the favourite is the first horse they want in the book.
Backing favourites in every race would result in a loss for the punter of between 5% and 10% of stakes placed.
Sorry, I meant heavy odds-on favourites. But of course regarding stakes placed. That's because, as you know, bookmakers stack the odds in their favour. Otherwise the sum of probabilities would always total 1 wouldn't it? Let's take the 17:40 at Carlisle today. Sixteen runners. A random bookmaker's (Power in this case) sum of probabilities for this race, comes to 1.44. (You get to the 1 figure after just totalling the first six horses)! Which tells you everything you need to know. But they are still allowed to come up with all this "enhanced" or "boosted" bet baloney to mislead the punter.
How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.
So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.
Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.
I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?
Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?
Really?
In horse racing 30-35% of favourites win - that means 65-70% lose. Bookmakers don't need any help getting favourites beat and the favourite is the first horse they want in the book.
Backing favourites in every race would result in a loss for the punter of between 5% and 10% of stakes placed.
Sorry, I meant heavy odds-on favourites. But of course regarding stakes placed. That's because, as you know, bookmakers stack the odds in their favour. Otherwise the sum of probabilities would always total 1 wouldn't it? Let's take the 17:40 at Carlisle today. Sixteen runners. A random bookmaker's (Power in this case) sum of probabilities for this race, comes to 1.44. (You get to the 1 figure after just totalling the first six horses)! Which tells you everything you need to know. But they are still allowed to come up with all this "enhanced" or "boosted" bet baloney to mislead the punter.
I'm fully aware of bookmaking theory!
No bookmaker would be able to retire by offering Evens heads and tails on the toss of a coin!
How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.
So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.
Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.
I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?
Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?
Really?
In horse racing 30-35% of favourites win - that means 65-70% lose. Bookmakers don't need any help getting favourites beat and the favourite is the first horse they want in the book.
Backing favourites in every race would result in a loss for the punter of between 5% and 10% of stakes placed.
Sorry, I meant heavy odds-on favourites. But of course regarding stakes placed. That's because, as you know, bookmakers stack the odds in their favour. Otherwise the sum of probabilities would always total 1 wouldn't it? Let's take the 17:40 at Carlisle today. Sixteen runners. A random bookmaker's (Power in this case) sum of probabilities for this race, comes to 1.44. (You get to the 1 figure after just totalling the first six horses)! Which tells you everything you need to know. But they are still allowed to come up with all this "enhanced" or "boosted" bet baloney to mislead the punter.
I'm fully aware of bookmaking theory!
No bookmaker would be able to retire by offering Evens heads and Tails on the toss of a coin!
And 40% of odds-on favourites lose!
I know you are. You'll also know that the recent Gambling Commission report says that 41% (up from 39% in 2016) of people believe that gambling is associated with crime. Is there any other industry that could come close to that figure and survive? (Apart from the mafia of course.)
You'll also know that only 33% of respondents think that gambling is fair and can be trusted. Even banks - yes them - manage 55%! What an industry to work for.
If you can get a decent bet , as in a grand plus , off with a bookie you are either a shit gambler or backing at a shit price that can be bettered on betfair . Any winning gamblers are soon reduced in stake size to pennies
How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.
So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.
Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.
I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?
Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?
Really?
In horse racing 30-35% of favourites win - that means 65-70% lose. Bookmakers don't need any help getting favourites beat and the favourite is the first horse they want in the book.
Backing favourites in every race would result in a loss for the punter of between 5% and 10% of stakes placed.
Sorry, I meant heavy odds-on favourites. But of course regarding stakes placed. That's because, as you know, bookmakers stack the odds in their favour. Otherwise the sum of probabilities would always total 1 wouldn't it? Let's take the 17:40 at Carlisle today. Sixteen runners. A random bookmaker's (Power in this case) sum of probabilities for this race, comes to 1.44. (You get to the 1 figure after just totalling the first six horses)! Which tells you everything you need to know. But they are still allowed to come up with all this "enhanced" or "boosted" bet baloney to mislead the punter.
I'm fully aware of bookmaking theory!
No bookmaker would be able to retire by offering Evens heads and Tails on the toss of a coin!
And 40% of odds-on favourites lose!
I know you are. You'll also know that the recent Gambling Commission report says that 41% (up from 39% in 2016) of people believe that gambling is associated with crime. Is there any other industry that could come close to that figure and survive? (Apart from the mafia of course.)
You'll also know that only 33% of respondents think that gambling is fair and can be trusted. Even banks - yes them - manage 55%! What an industry to work for.
How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.
So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.
Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.
I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?
Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?
Really?
In horse racing 30-35% of favourites win - that means 65-70% lose. Bookmakers don't need any help getting favourites beat and the favourite is the first horse they want in the book.
Backing favourites in every race would result in a loss for the punter of between 5% and 10% of stakes placed.
Sorry, I meant heavy odds-on favourites. But of course regarding stakes placed. That's because, as you know, bookmakers stack the odds in their favour. Otherwise the sum of probabilities would always total 1 wouldn't it? Let's take the 17:40 at Carlisle today. Sixteen runners. A random bookmaker's (Power in this case) sum of probabilities for this race, comes to 1.44. (You get to the 1 figure after just totalling the first six horses)! Which tells you everything you need to know. But they are still allowed to come up with all this "enhanced" or "boosted" bet baloney to mislead the punter.
I'm fully aware of bookmaking theory!
No bookmaker would be able to retire by offering Evens heads and Tails on the toss of a coin!
And 40% of odds-on favourites lose!
I know you are. You'll also know that the recent Gambling Commission report says that 41% (up from 39% in 2016) of people believe that gambling is associated with crime. Is there any other industry that could come close to that figure and survive? (Apart from the mafia of course.)
You'll also know that only 33% of respondents think that gambling is fair and can be trusted. Even banks - yes them - manage 55%! What an industry to work for.
Your high horse should be proper good over the jumps.
How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.
So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.
Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.
I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?
Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?
Really?
In horse racing 30-35% of favourites win - that means 65-70% lose. Bookmakers don't need any help getting favourites beat and the favourite is the first horse they want in the book.
Backing favourites in every race would result in a loss for the punter of between 5% and 10% of stakes placed.
Sorry, I meant heavy odds-on favourites. But of course regarding stakes placed. That's because, as you know, bookmakers stack the odds in their favour. Otherwise the sum of probabilities would always total 1 wouldn't it? Let's take the 17:40 at Carlisle today. Sixteen runners. A random bookmaker's (Power in this case) sum of probabilities for this race, comes to 1.44. (You get to the 1 figure after just totalling the first six horses)! Which tells you everything you need to know. But they are still allowed to come up with all this "enhanced" or "boosted" bet baloney to mislead the punter.
I'm fully aware of bookmaking theory!
No bookmaker would be able to retire by offering Evens heads and Tails on the toss of a coin!
And 40% of odds-on favourites lose!
I know you are. You'll also know that the recent Gambling Commission report says that 41% (up from 39% in 2016) of people believe that gambling is associated with crime. Is there any other industry that could come close to that figure and survive? (Apart from the mafia of course.)
You'll also know that only 33% of respondents think that gambling is fair and can be trusted. Even banks - yes them - manage 55%! What an industry to work for.
Are you questioning my integrity, having worked in the betting industry for 37 years?
There has always been crime associated with gambling - Las Vegas was built with Mafia money ffs. How many punters who have a narrow miss shout 'fixed'? Bookies are criminals etc...
That's what some people think maybe, but the reality couldn't be further from that. Never in my entire life have I witnessed or been party to any activity that could be even remotely deemed criminal. Gambling is, quite rightly, one of the most regulated industries in the country. But if you're a bookie you're a criminal - if you're a name at Lloyds of London or a stockbroker then you are described as 'something in the city'.
The main tenets of the Gambling Act are:
(a)preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
(b)ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
(c)protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
Every single operator is committed to upholding those tenets. I could give you chapter and verse on the work we do for example on responsible gambling - way, way above what might be expected by The Gambling Commission - but I fear I would be wasting my breath. We educate them rather than the other way around. No bookmaker wants their customers to have a problem and all bookmakers work with authorities to, for example, identify and prosecute customers under AML and POCA legislation.
It's a f*cking brilliant industry to work in, full of people with the highest levels of integrity you could wish to meet.
The only problem I have with bookmakers is their tendency to restrict, limit or otherwise close the accounts of winning punters. If you're not an absolute mug punter, you're not welcome. That's why exchanges are the way forward.
How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.
So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.
Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.
I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?
Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?
Really?
In horse racing 30-35% of favourites win - that means 65-70% lose. Bookmakers don't need any help getting favourites beat and the favourite is the first horse they want in the book.
Backing favourites in every race would result in a loss for the punter of between 5% and 10% of stakes placed.
Sorry, I meant heavy odds-on favourites. But of course regarding stakes placed. That's because, as you know, bookmakers stack the odds in their favour. Otherwise the sum of probabilities would always total 1 wouldn't it? Let's take the 17:40 at Carlisle today. Sixteen runners. A random bookmaker's (Power in this case) sum of probabilities for this race, comes to 1.44. (You get to the 1 figure after just totalling the first six horses)! Which tells you everything you need to know. But they are still allowed to come up with all this "enhanced" or "boosted" bet baloney to mislead the punter.
I'm fully aware of bookmaking theory!
No bookmaker would be able to retire by offering Evens heads and Tails on the toss of a coin!
And 40% of odds-on favourites lose!
I know you are. You'll also know that the recent Gambling Commission report says that 41% (up from 39% in 2016) of people believe that gambling is associated with crime. Is there any other industry that could come close to that figure and survive? (Apart from the mafia of course.)
You'll also know that only 33% of respondents think that gambling is fair and can be trusted. Even banks - yes them - manage 55%! What an industry to work for.
(b)ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
This is the only bit I find as being a bit of a red herring and doesn't seem to be a behaviour that the industry actively lives, as Callum also highlights. If it was fair then they wouldn't be allowed to cancel accounts just because they lose money.
The only problem I have with bookmakers is their tendency to restrict, limit or otherwise close the accounts of winning punters. If you're not an absolute mug punter, you're not welcome. That's why exchanges are the way forward.
I was a shit punter (before I had counselling and stopped sports betting , betfair punters were the winners of my considerable losses) and was restricted by plenty of firms and spread betting ones as well , even ones I was losing to but because I would only bet with them when they were best price they didn’t like it .
I tend to agree. I certainly don't like any examples of bookmakers allowing gambling on credit. Maxing out a series of credit cards is a disaster. Could gambling only be done in cash or direct debit or immediate bank transfers?
80% plus of all online betting transactions in the UK are via debit card - and those that fund with credit cards are monitored very closely. Multiple cards and/or the use of sub-prime high interest credit cards would result in the account being suspended.
Very few bookmakers now offer credit account facilities.
Given how many people are addicted to gambling, that should be banned completely rather than 'monitored closely'.
Obviously not a dig at you as i know you're only giving us info, but in my opinion if you're gambling by using money off a credit card then you shouldn't be gambling at all.
I'm actually quite surprised you're even allowed to do that and i wonder how much longer people will be allowed to. Anyone doing that surely has to be a red flag for 'in debt' or 'gambling addict'.
I tend to agree. I certainly don't like any examples of bookmakers allowing gambling on credit. Maxing out a series of credit cards is a disaster. Could gambling only be done in cash or direct debit or immediate bank transfers?
80% plus of all online betting transactions in the UK are via debit card - and those that fund with credit cards are monitored very closely. Multiple cards and/or the use of sub-prime high interest credit cards would result in the account being suspended.
Very few bookmakers now offer credit account facilities.
Given how many people are addicted to gambling, that should be banned completely rather than 'monitored closely'.
Obviously not a dig at you as i know you're only giving us info, but in my opinion if you're gambling by using money off a credit card then you shouldn't be gambling at all.
I'm actually quite surprised you're even allowed to do that and i wonder how much longer people will be allowed to. Anyone doing that surely has to be a red flag for 'in debt' or 'gambling addict'.
There could be many valid reasons why somebody would use a credit card rather than a debit card, and there is nothing wrong with using a credit card if the balance is paid in full each month.
I share your concerns though and the use of credit cards is currently being looked at by the Gambling Commission.
How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.
So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.
Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.
I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?
Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?
Really?
In horse racing 30-35% of favourites win - that means 65-70% lose. Bookmakers don't need any help getting favourites beat and the favourite is the first horse they want in the book.
Backing favourites in every race would result in a loss for the punter of between 5% and 10% of stakes placed.
Sorry, I meant heavy odds-on favourites. But of course regarding stakes placed. That's because, as you know, bookmakers stack the odds in their favour. Otherwise the sum of probabilities would always total 1 wouldn't it? Let's take the 17:40 at Carlisle today. Sixteen runners. A random bookmaker's (Power in this case) sum of probabilities for this race, comes to 1.44. (You get to the 1 figure after just totalling the first six horses)! Which tells you everything you need to know. But they are still allowed to come up with all this "enhanced" or "boosted" bet baloney to mislead the punter.
I'm fully aware of bookmaking theory!
No bookmaker would be able to retire by offering Evens heads and Tails on the toss of a coin!
And 40% of odds-on favourites lose!
I know you are. You'll also know that the recent Gambling Commission report says that 41% (up from 39% in 2016) of people believe that gambling is associated with crime. Is there any other industry that could come close to that figure and survive? (Apart from the mafia of course.)
You'll also know that only 33% of respondents think that gambling is fair and can be trusted. Even banks - yes them - manage 55%! What an industry to work for.
Are you questioning my integrity, having worked in the betting industry for 37 years?
There has always been crime associated with gambling - Las Vegas was built with Mafia money ffs. How many punters who have a narrow miss shout 'fixed'? Bookies are criminals etc...
That's what some people think maybe, but the reality couldn't be further from that. Never in my entire life have I witnessed or been party to any activity that could be even remotely deemed criminal. Gambling is, quite rightly, one of the most regulated industries in the country. But if you're a bookie you're a criminal - if you're a name at Lloyds of London or a stockbroker then you are described as 'something in the city'.
The main tenets of the Gambling Act are:
(a)preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
(b)ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
(c)protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
Every single operator is committed to upholding those tenets. I could give you chapter and verse on the work we do for example on responsible gambling - way, way above what might be expected by The Gambling Commission - but I fear I would be wasting my breath. We educate them rather than the other way around. No bookmaker wants their customers to have a problem and all bookmakers work with authorities to, for example, identify and prosecute customers under AML and POCA legislation.
It's a f*cking brilliant industry to work in, full of people with the highest levels of integrity you could wish to meet.
This is not true and anyone who believes it is, is extremely naive.
I tend to agree. I certainly don't like any examples of bookmakers allowing gambling on credit. Maxing out a series of credit cards is a disaster. Could gambling only be done in cash or direct debit or immediate bank transfers?
80% plus of all online betting transactions in the UK are via debit card - and those that fund with credit cards are monitored very closely. Multiple cards and/or the use of sub-prime high interest credit cards would result in the account being suspended.
Very few bookmakers now offer credit account facilities.
Given how many people are addicted to gambling, that should be banned completely rather than 'monitored closely'.
Obviously not a dig at you as i know you're only giving us info, but in my opinion if you're gambling by using money off a credit card then you shouldn't be gambling at all.
I'm actually quite surprised you're even allowed to do that and i wonder how much longer people will be allowed to. Anyone doing that surely has to be a red flag for 'in debt' or 'gambling addict'.
Should people be able to pay for a £2000 holiday I can't afford on credit card?
The original post is way off the truth. If you want to look at big business integrity - ask Amazon and Google about those tax figures that were published this week.
At least Lads, Hills etc pay their fair share to the taxman - as do Frankie, Winstone etc from from their fee.
As for the £600 loss per gambler, don’t forget good old Camelot in your calculations.
Gambling is a pastime, same as booze. It is only when taken to excess that they become a problem.
I wonder if the reason so many bookies like William Hills registered companies (especially online betting) overseas in countries like Gibraltar, was to make it easier to pay their UK tax over here? Highly doubtful.
Gibraltar is part of the UK. They have a tax regime along the lines of UK, hence, tax gets paid fully legal. The UK government could influence the Gib tax rules if they wanted. As for Malta, they are an EU member state, so again you have to say that the tax law is being complied with.
As for other territories, any profits bookies make overseas cannot be repatriated tax free. Hills and Lads (among other bookies) are UK companies.
The original post is way off the truth. If you want to look at big business integrity - ask Amazon and Google about those tax figures that were published this week.
At least Lads, Hills etc pay their fair share to the taxman - as do Frankie, Winstone etc from from their fee.
As for the £600 loss per gambler, don’t forget good old Camelot in your calculations.
Gambling is a pastime, same as booze. It is only when taken to excess that they become a problem.
I wonder if the reason so many bookies like William Hills registered companies (especially online betting) overseas in countries like Gibraltar, was to make it easier to pay their UK tax over here? Highly doubtful.
Gibraltar is part of the UK. They have a tax regime along the lines of UK, hence, tax gets paid fully legal. The UK government could influence the Gib tax rules if they wanted. As for Malta, they are an EU member state, so again you have to say that the tax law is being complied with.
As for other territories, any profits bookies make overseas cannot be repatriated tax free. Hills and Lads (among other bookies) are UK companies.
No it isn't. It's a British Overseas Territory. It has its own tax regime. With advantageous personal tax, low corporation tax (10%) which is only applied to activities within Gibraltar, gaming tax is 1% but is capped at £425,000 per licence. And there is no VAT. Which is why on-line gambling is one of the Rock's largest industries.
When I stick my weekly fiver/tenner on an accy or something each weekend I do so for a bit of fun with no expectations of getting much if anything back. Some weeks I win but most weeks I lose, but I go in expecting to lose so it doesn't bother me - it's about adding that bit of excitement and air of possibility to football for me. My brother meanwhile spends ten quid a day on cigarettes which are quite probably killing him. I'm sure he gets pleasure from it in the same way as my weekly bet but I know which vice I prefer to have...
The cigarette industry is the one you want to point fingers at in terms of lack of integrity. Or the frigging government which makes a mint off taxing it instead of really doing something about it.
The only thing about gambling that concerns me is the advertisement, which I think needs to be dialled back a bit - shouldn't be on the front of footy shirts that kids will wear, and I do think online slots (and fobts) are massive scams - you shouldn't be allowed to stake 50 quid plus on a single spin on an online slot it's obscene. I would imagine the slots and fobts make up a large proportion of this 600 loss per person figure that's been quoted - certainly more so than footy bets.
The original post is way off the truth. If you want to look at big business integrity - ask Amazon and Google about those tax figures that were published this week.
At least Lads, Hills etc pay their fair share to the taxman - as do Frankie, Winstone etc from from their fee.
As for the £600 loss per gambler, don’t forget good old Camelot in your calculations.
Gambling is a pastime, same as booze. It is only when taken to excess that they become a problem.
I wonder if the reason so many bookies like William Hills registered companies (especially online betting) overseas in countries like Gibraltar, was to make it easier to pay their UK tax over here? Highly doubtful.
Gibraltar is part of the UK. They have a tax regime along the lines of UK, hence, tax gets paid fully legal. The UK government could influence the Gib tax rules if they wanted. As for Malta, they are an EU member state, so again you have to say that the tax law is being complied with.
As for other territories, any profits bookies make overseas cannot be repatriated tax free. Hills and Lads (among other bookies) are UK companies.
No it isn't. It's a British Overseas Territory. It has its own tax regime. With advantageous personal tax, low corporation tax (10%) which is only applied to activities within Gibraltar, gaming tax is 1% but is capped at £425,000 per licence. And there is no VAT. Which is why on-line gambling is one of the Rock's largest industries.
The first betting companies that went out there were avoiding betting tax in the UK on their UK business (which was most of their business) - Chandler was first and then Ladbrokes, Hills et al followed suit. The Government then introduced a point of consumption tax that basically f*cked them and they had to pay UK betting tax on their UK business irrespective of where their servers were located.
There’s so many factors at play here. What’s the betting industry worth to the U.K. economy? Quite a bit I’d imagine. The betting industry can also at its very worst be a gateway to debt, depression and death. Then again so can alcohol, drugs, cigarettes and even sugar. Granted one of those is illegal, but if you’re into any of them, there’s a chance they can all ruin your life if you develop an addiction.
I don’t know enough about what the gaming industry does to help curb addiction, and ethically you could argue there’s a strong duty of care and steps like limiting the amount of money on those ‘crack machines’ in shops is a good start. Yet this kind of bombardment and infiltration exists in all businesses. Toys, sweets, ppi, payday loans. It’s just big business doing what big business does. They’re all machines. They exist to generate revenue and make profits for shareholders.
I do think there is a proliferation of tv adverts from betting companies during sporting events and I think it could be cut back. Jeff Stelling telling us to stop once the fun stops is tokenistic. It’s not just that now though. There are 100s of betting tipsters on twitter like footy super tips that are also businesses that glamorise and make you think you can crack the system. They are just as bad. They give idiots like me the impression that I’m suddenly going to supplement my income with consistent winnings on betting
I used to do accas every week until football become too tight to call and the odds got in my opinion lower and not worth the time. I have no idea about the horses, other than what I read on the threads on here etc and I enjoy trying my luck at Cheltenham say, and luckily I can dip in and out on occasion. Others can’t. I guess until your life is impacted adversely by it, you just won’t ever know.
As for what can be done, where do you start and where do you draw the line. Business (whatever business), has a very good way of manipulating the game
I tend to agree. I certainly don't like any examples of bookmakers allowing gambling on credit. Maxing out a series of credit cards is a disaster. Could gambling only be done in cash or direct debit or immediate bank transfers?
80% plus of all online betting transactions in the UK are via debit card - and those that fund with credit cards are monitored very closely. Multiple cards and/or the use of sub-prime high interest credit cards would result in the account being suspended.
Very few bookmakers now offer credit account facilities.
Given how many people are addicted to gambling, that should be banned completely rather than 'monitored closely'.
Obviously not a dig at you as i know you're only giving us info, but in my opinion if you're gambling by using money off a credit card then you shouldn't be gambling at all.
I'm actually quite surprised you're even allowed to do that and i wonder how much longer people will be allowed to. Anyone doing that surely has to be a red flag for 'in debt' or 'gambling addict'.
There could be many valid reasons why somebody would use a credit card rather than a debit card, and there is nothing wrong with using a credit card if the balance is paid in full each month.
I share your concerns though and the use of credit cards is currently being looked at by the Gambling Commission.
When you say they are monitored, that is for money laundering and fraud reasons isn't in?
Having worked in the industry myself, the companies I worked for couldn't care less for the well being of customers. The idea of self exclusion is a joke as all it would take is one phone call to reopen the account.
While I agree about the integrity of bookies, you can't deny the existence of betting discourages integrity in sport. Saying that the governing bodies of the sports should do more. Tennis is just as corrupt as cricket and snooker yet the atp and wta will not even admit is a problem because they are worried about image. It isn't even just low level stuff, I remember Alex bogolomov retiring injured in a tie break at a grand slam to make sure he didn't win the match. Yet nothing happened.
Football authorities work with bookies and often suspend betting on matches that have shown irregularities. More sports should follow their example and take action against the parties involved.
Saw a big picture of Frankie Dettori promoting Ladbrokes, I think, in a betting shop window. How can the Jockey Club, or whoever runs racing now, allow that? Who is he riding for? Fairly for the punter, on orders from the owners or to help the bookies steal more money from the punters? It stinks.
You idiot! Without the likes of Frankie Dettori there would be no betting industry. No one has to bet on anything. The likes of Frankie bringing in a big payday is what horse racing gambling is all about. No one has to bet FFS!
I tend to agree. I certainly don't like any examples of bookmakers allowing gambling on credit. Maxing out a series of credit cards is a disaster. Could gambling only be done in cash or direct debit or immediate bank transfers?
80% plus of all online betting transactions in the UK are via debit card - and those that fund with credit cards are monitored very closely. Multiple cards and/or the use of sub-prime high interest credit cards would result in the account being suspended.
Very few bookmakers now offer credit account facilities.
Given how many people are addicted to gambling, that should be banned completely rather than 'monitored closely'.
Obviously not a dig at you as i know you're only giving us info, but in my opinion if you're gambling by using money off a credit card then you shouldn't be gambling at all.
I'm actually quite surprised you're even allowed to do that and i wonder how much longer people will be allowed to. Anyone doing that surely has to be a red flag for 'in debt' or 'gambling addict'.
There could be many valid reasons why somebody would use a credit card rather than a debit card, and there is nothing wrong with using a credit card if the balance is paid in full each month.
I share your concerns though and the use of credit cards is currently being looked at by the Gambling Commission.
When you say they are monitored, that is for money laundering and fraud reasons isn't in?
Having worked in the industry myself, the companies I worked for couldn't care less for the well being of customers. The idea of self exclusion is a joke as all it would take is one phone call to reopen the account.
While I agree about the integrity of bookies, you can't deny the existence of betting discourages integrity in sport. Saying that the governing bodies of the sports should do more. Tennis is just as corrupt as cricket and snooker yet the atp and wta will not even admit is a problem because they are worried about image. It isn't even just low level stuff, I remember Alex bogolomov retiring injured in a tie break at a grand slam to make sure he didn't win the match. Yet nothing happened.
Football authorities work with bookies and often suspend betting on matches that have shown irregularities. More sports should follow their example and take action against the parties involved.
No, it is for responsible gambling reasons - it is one of the triggers we use to take action. We have an entire department (run by my eldest actually) looking at ways we can improve the detection rates, identifying problem gamblers before it becomes a problem. No customer who self-excludes (or that we exclude) with us could possibly reactivate their account during the exclusion period (which can be permanent).
On sports integrity, bookmakers work with ESSA (I posted a link earlier) who in turn work with all sports. What the sports governing bodies do is out with our control - we can just report it.
I tend to agree. I certainly don't like any examples of bookmakers allowing gambling on credit. Maxing out a series of credit cards is a disaster. Could gambling only be done in cash or direct debit or immediate bank transfers?
80% plus of all online betting transactions in the UK are via debit card - and those that fund with credit cards are monitored very closely. Multiple cards and/or the use of sub-prime high interest credit cards would result in the account being suspended.
Very few bookmakers now offer credit account facilities.
Given how many people are addicted to gambling, that should be banned completely rather than 'monitored closely'.
Obviously not a dig at you as i know you're only giving us info, but in my opinion if you're gambling by using money off a credit card then you shouldn't be gambling at all.
I'm actually quite surprised you're even allowed to do that and i wonder how much longer people will be allowed to. Anyone doing that surely has to be a red flag for 'in debt' or 'gambling addict'.
There could be many valid reasons why somebody would use a credit card rather than a debit card, and there is nothing wrong with using a credit card if the balance is paid in full each month.
I share your concerns though and the use of credit cards is currently being looked at by the Gambling Commission.
When you say they are monitored, that is for money laundering and fraud reasons isn't in?
Having worked in the industry myself, the companies I worked for couldn't care less for the well being of customers. The idea of self exclusion is a joke as all it would take is one phone call to reopen the account.
While I agree about the integrity of bookies, you can't deny the existence of betting discourages integrity in sport. Saying that the governing bodies of the sports should do more. Tennis is just as corrupt as cricket and snooker yet the atp and wta will not even admit is a problem because they are worried about image. It isn't even just low level stuff, I remember Alex bogolomov retiring injured in a tie break at a grand slam to make sure he didn't win the match. Yet nothing happened.
Football authorities work with bookies and often suspend betting on matches that have shown irregularities. More sports should follow their example and take action against the parties involved.
No, it is for responsible gambling reasons - it is one of the triggers we use to take action. We have an entire department (run by my eldest actually) looking at ways we can improve the detection rates, identifying problem gamblers before it becomes a problem. No customer who self-excludes (or that we exclude) with us could possibly reactivate their account during the exclusion period (which can be permanent).
On sports integrity, bookmakers work with ESSA (I posted a link earlier) who in turn work with all sports. What the sports governing bodies do is out with our control - we can just report it.
Fair enough and I'm glad to hear your firm takes a proactive approach.
It's been a few years since I worked in betting and maybe things have changed but my experience of the largest UK firms, when it came to responsible gambling, was lip service for the commission, government and the media. They were reliant on problem gambling, the entire retail side was propped up by the FOB machines and online was a boon because it gave unparalleled access that went pretty much unchecked.
The fact that someone could reactive an account that has been excluded, either by themselves or by you while you say you are trying to get ahead of the problem perfectly illustrates the duality of the industry. The addiction doesn't go away and you don't give the money back.
Then you have limits. If someone was losing a lot on their account affordability and responsibility was never part of the discussion as we increased the amount they could stake. Conversely reduction in a stake factor was mostly only ever done to protect the firms profits.
Back to the original topic I agree they are part of the solution rather than the problem.
The original post is way off the truth. If you want to look at big business integrity - ask Amazon and Google about those tax figures that were published this week.
At least Lads, Hills etc pay their fair share to the taxman - as do Frankie, Winstone etc from from their fee.
As for the £600 loss per gambler, don’t forget good old Camelot in your calculations.
Gambling is a pastime, same as booze. It is only when taken to excess that they become a problem.
I wonder if the reason so many bookies like William Hills registered companies (especially online betting) overseas in countries like Gibraltar, was to make it easier to pay their UK tax over here? Highly doubtful.
Gibraltar is part of the UK. They have a tax regime along the lines of UK, hence, tax gets paid fully legal. The UK government could influence the Gib tax rules if they wanted. As for Malta, they are an EU member state, so again you have to say that the tax law is being complied with.
As for other territories, any profits bookies make overseas cannot be repatriated tax free. Hills and Lads (among other bookies) are UK companies.
No it isn't. It's a British Overseas Territory. It has its own tax regime. With advantageous personal tax, low corporation tax (10%) which is only applied to activities within Gibraltar, gaming tax is 1% but is capped at £425,000 per licence. And there is no VAT. Which is why on-line gambling is one of the Rock's largest industries.
Yes - exactly. Servers have to be sited there, to comply with point of consumption rules. Tax paid, as you say, at the rates set by the Gib Government. Hills, Lads, 365, etc all service some of their overseas customers there.
Anything illegal ? Anything that affects the integrity of those bookies or sport ? Anything different to Starbucks and the other bad boys ?
The original post is way off the truth. If you want to look at big business integrity - ask Amazon and Google about those tax figures that were published this week.
At least Lads, Hills etc pay their fair share to the taxman - as do Frankie, Winstone etc from from their fee.
As for the £600 loss per gambler, don’t forget good old Camelot in your calculations.
Gambling is a pastime, same as booze. It is only when taken to excess that they become a problem.
I wonder if the reason so many bookies like William Hills registered companies (especially online betting) overseas in countries like Gibraltar, was to make it easier to pay their UK tax over here? Highly doubtful.
Gibraltar is part of the UK. They have a tax regime along the lines of UK, hence, tax gets paid fully legal. The UK government could influence the Gib tax rules if they wanted. As for Malta, they are an EU member state, so again you have to say that the tax law is being complied with.
As for other territories, any profits bookies make overseas cannot be repatriated tax free. Hills and Lads (among other bookies) are UK companies.
No it isn't. It's a British Overseas Territory. It has its own tax regime. With advantageous personal tax, low corporation tax (10%) which is only applied to activities within Gibraltar, gaming tax is 1% but is capped at £425,000 per licence. And there is no VAT. Which is why on-line gambling is one of the Rock's largest industries.
Yes - exactly. Servers have to be sited there, to comply with point of consumption rules. Tax paid, as you say, at the rates set by the Gib Government. Hills, Lads, 365, etc all service some of their overseas customers there.
Anything illegal ? Anything that affects the integrity of those bookies or sport ? Anything different to Starbucks and the other bad boys ?
Illegal, no. Until the PoC came in there was nothing illegal about siting servers and being licensed in Gibraltar whilst taking bets from the UK - paying 1% betting tax there rather than 15% betting tax here. Collectively they were saving around £300m a year in taxes. Avoidance, yes, evasion, no.
That changed with the PoC, introduced in 2014, and now those companies have to pay the 15% tax on their UK business irrespective of where their servers are located - that was a big hit on the likes of Laddies and Hills. Funnily enough no hit at all on the biggest of them all as they had always paid 15% on their UK betting business ;-)
Yes 365 operate in Gibraltar and pay betting taxes there but only on our non-UK business.
Comments
No bookmaker would be able to retire by offering Evens heads and tails on the toss of a coin!
And 40% of odds-on favourites lose!
You'll also know that only 33% of respondents think that gambling is fair and can be trusted. Even banks - yes them - manage 55%! What an industry to work for.
Any winning gamblers are soon reduced in stake size to pennies
There has always been crime associated with gambling - Las Vegas was built with Mafia money ffs. How many punters who have a narrow miss shout 'fixed'? Bookies are criminals etc...
That's what some people think maybe, but the reality couldn't be further from that. Never in my entire life have I witnessed or been party to any activity that could be even remotely deemed criminal. Gambling is, quite rightly, one of the most regulated industries in the country. But if you're a bookie you're a criminal - if you're a name at Lloyds of London or a stockbroker then you are described as 'something in the city'.
The main tenets of the Gambling Act are:
(a)preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
(b)ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
(c)protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
Every single operator is committed to upholding those tenets. I could give you chapter and verse on the work we do for example on responsible gambling - way, way above what might be expected by The Gambling Commission - but I fear I would be wasting my breath. We educate them rather than the other way around. No bookmaker wants their customers to have a problem and all bookmakers work with authorities to, for example, identify and prosecute customers under AML and POCA legislation.
It's a f*cking brilliant industry to work in, full of people with the highest levels of integrity you could wish to meet.
Obviously not a dig at you as i know you're only giving us info, but in my opinion if you're gambling by using money off a credit card then you shouldn't be gambling at all.
I'm actually quite surprised you're even allowed to do that and i wonder how much longer people will be allowed to. Anyone doing that surely has to be a red flag for 'in debt' or 'gambling addict'.
I share your concerns though and the use of credit cards is currently being looked at by the Gambling Commission.
They have a tax regime along the lines of UK, hence, tax gets paid fully legal. The UK government could influence the Gib tax rules if they wanted.
As for Malta, they are an EU member state, so again you have to say that the tax law is being complied with.
As for other territories, any profits bookies make overseas cannot be repatriated tax free. Hills and Lads (among other bookies) are UK companies.
The cigarette industry is the one you want to point fingers at in terms of lack of integrity. Or the frigging government which makes a mint off taxing it instead of really doing something about it.
The only thing about gambling that concerns me is the advertisement, which I think needs to be dialled back a bit - shouldn't be on the front of footy shirts that kids will wear, and I do think online slots (and fobts) are massive scams - you shouldn't be allowed to stake 50 quid plus on a single spin on an online slot it's obscene. I would imagine the slots and fobts make up a large proportion of this 600 loss per person figure that's been quoted - certainly more so than footy bets.
I don’t know enough about what the gaming industry does to help curb addiction, and ethically you could argue there’s a strong duty of care and steps like limiting the amount of money on those ‘crack machines’ in shops is a good start. Yet this kind of bombardment and infiltration exists in all businesses. Toys, sweets, ppi, payday loans. It’s just big business doing what big business does. They’re all machines. They exist to generate revenue and make profits for shareholders.
I do think there is a proliferation of tv adverts from betting companies during sporting events and I think it could be cut back. Jeff Stelling telling us to stop once the fun stops is tokenistic. It’s not just that now though. There are 100s of betting tipsters on twitter like footy super tips that are also businesses that glamorise and make you think you can crack the system. They are just as bad. They give idiots like me the impression that I’m suddenly going to supplement my income with consistent winnings on betting
I used to do accas every week until football become too tight to call and the odds got in my opinion lower and not worth the time. I have no idea about the horses, other than what I read on the threads on here etc and I enjoy trying my luck at Cheltenham say, and luckily I can dip in and out on occasion. Others can’t. I guess until your life is impacted adversely by it, you just won’t ever know.
As for what can be done, where do you start and where do you draw the line. Business (whatever business), has a very good way of manipulating the game
Having worked in the industry myself, the companies I worked for couldn't care less for the well being of customers. The idea of self exclusion is a joke as all it would take is one phone call to reopen the account.
While I agree about the integrity of bookies, you can't deny the existence of betting discourages integrity in sport. Saying that the governing bodies of the sports should do more. Tennis is just as corrupt as cricket and snooker yet the atp and wta will not even admit is a problem because they are worried about image. It isn't even just low level stuff, I remember Alex bogolomov retiring injured in a tie break at a grand slam to make sure he didn't win the match. Yet nothing happened.
Football authorities work with bookies and often suspend betting on matches that have shown irregularities. More sports should follow their example and take action against the parties involved.
No one has to bet on anything.
The likes of Frankie bringing in a big payday is what horse racing gambling is all about.
No one has to bet FFS!
On sports integrity, bookmakers work with ESSA (I posted a link earlier) who in turn work with all sports. What the sports governing bodies do is out with our control - we can just report it.
It's been a few years since I worked in betting and maybe things have changed but my experience of the largest UK firms, when it came to responsible gambling, was lip service for the commission, government and the media. They were reliant on problem gambling, the entire retail side was propped up by the FOB machines and online was a boon because it gave unparalleled access that went pretty much unchecked.
The fact that someone could reactive an account that has been excluded, either by themselves or by you while you say you are trying to get ahead of the problem perfectly illustrates the duality of the industry. The addiction doesn't go away and you don't give the money back.
Then you have limits. If someone was losing a lot on their account affordability and responsibility was never part of the discussion as we increased the amount they could stake. Conversely reduction in a stake factor was mostly only ever done to protect the firms profits.
Back to the original topic I agree they are part of the solution rather than the problem.
Servers have to be sited there, to comply with point of consumption rules.
Tax paid, as you say, at the rates set by the Gib Government.
Hills, Lads, 365, etc all service some of their overseas customers there.
Anything illegal ?
Anything that affects the integrity of those bookies or sport ?
Anything different to Starbucks and the other bad boys ?
That changed with the PoC, introduced in 2014, and now those companies have to pay the 15% tax on their UK business irrespective of where their servers are located - that was a big hit on the likes of Laddies and Hills. Funnily enough no hit at all on the biggest of them all as they had always paid 15% on their UK betting business ;-)
Yes 365 operate in Gibraltar and pay betting taxes there but only on our non-UK business.