I vary rarely gamble....and certainly wouldn't entertain placing bets on thing I know nothing about ie Lithuanian Netball (or whatever example that advert talks about)?!?
I think that it is very difficult (and wrong) to try and apply a broad brush solution to something that (I assume) is an edge case in terms of percentage of ppl that get themselves into real trouble gambling vs the total number of ppl who 'gamble responsibly'. We have a few guys from within the industry here who have stated that they are bound by legislation to try and identify these problem cases and act ethically accordingly and I for one certainly would not doubt what they say. I'm sure things can always be improved on but it seems that the responsible firms are at least trying to do the right thing.
Whenever you see something like last night's documentary - it will always raise emotions but again my assumption is that these cases are far from the norm. I would not want any solution to impinge on the enjoyment of the vast majority of ppl that do gamble within their means. Any additional legislation or whatever should always bear this in mind IMO.
I also assume that the internet age has brought in access to a number of unregistered / unregulated firms and these operations should 100% be either brought within legislation or otherwise closed down where possible.
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
My interpretation is that his company definitely do look to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money - but have processes and procedures in place to try and ensure that they can identify (and not then target) the problem cases.
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
I don't think Bob is saying that. He is saying that they have systems in place to identify those for whom gambling is an obvious problem. The "obvious" bit is the difficult part.
That said, I have two sons - the 28 year old is a professional gambler although, in the main, he is a trader specifically on cricket. He dropped out of Uni after two years studying maths and statistics having already amassed a sum of money and been banned/restricted to peanuts by every bookmaker in the country. He also pays what is called a Premium Charge by Betfair on their exchange which impacts massively on his profits. My younger son is 18 but, unlike his brother, isn't "rain man" when it comes to understanding odds and value. But guess what? Having opened accounts with a few bookmakers he is constantly being sent free bets to encourage him to bet which he duly uses and abuses.
If my eldest were to take over his brother's account, it would take these bookmakers a nanosecond to work out that it wasn't the 18 year old placing those bets. Size of bets, success rate, patterns of betting and even IP address would be enough for their systems to work that out.
So all bookmakers can identify good and bad gamblers. But most prefer to spend their resources and time to identify the former category and do something about them rather than the latter one.
My son got married about 8 years ago,I know he earned good money but always seemed skint,I never pushed him on why this was,every time the subject came up,it was met with stoney silence.When he left home,I had the dubious pleasure of disposing of his left behinds.I was shocked ,throughout his room where statements from bookies,Paddy Power etc.,he had lost thousands over the years.He should have spoke to me,I could have helped.Luckily,he did not get into serious debt,seemingly,when his wages run out,he stopped for the time being(he may have borrowed money I dont know).He is lucky,no doubt getting married helped and I am pretty sure the addiction is passed.The government earn too much from this industry,so they wont ban advertising,(although they banned smoking adverts ),but such is the coverage on TV etc.and the ease a child can become addicted,something must be done.Peronally I would make gambling debts unenforcable by Law,that would stop the betting companies pushing for money from people already in trouble.
But surely you pay up front to the the vast majority of the bookies.......so any corresponding debts would manifest themselves elsewhere?
Correct. There are very, very few credit accounts these days and credit cards cannot be used. So the money is up front.
Gambling debts became enforceable with the advent of the Gambling Act 2005. Taking into account the above, being enforceable primarily gives the right to a customer to enforce a payout - so be careful what you wish for @thickandthin63
Whilst that's true, it would take me about 2 mins to get the 5k from my credit card into my bank account. Gambling debt doesn't have to be about owing Paddy Power 10k, it's just as easily taking out loans, credit cards and remortgaging to feed the addiction.
My son got married about 8 years ago,I know he earned good money but always seemed skint,I never pushed him on why this was,every time the subject came up,it was met with stoney silence.When he left home,I had the dubious pleasure of disposing of his left behinds.I was shocked ,throughout his room where statements from bookies,Paddy Power etc.,he had lost thousands over the years.He should have spoke to me,I could have helped.Luckily,he did not get into serious debt,seemingly,when his wages run out,he stopped for the time being(he may have borrowed money I dont know).He is lucky,no doubt getting married helped and I am pretty sure the addiction is passed.The government earn too much from this industry,so they wont ban advertising,(although they banned smoking adverts ),but such is the coverage on TV etc.and the ease a child can become addicted,something must be done.Peronally I would make gambling debts unenforcable by Law,that would stop the betting companies pushing for money from people already in trouble.
But surely you pay up front to the the vast majority of the bookies.......so any corresponding debts would manifest themselves elsewhere?
Correct. There are very, very few credit accounts these days and credit cards cannot be used. So the money is up front.
Gambling debts became enforceable with the advent of the Gambling Act 2005. Taking into account the above, being enforceable primarily gives the right to a customer to enforce a payout - so be careful what you wish for @thickandthin63
Whilst that's true, it would take me about 2 mins to get the 5k from my credit card into my bank account. Gambling debt doesn't have to be about owing Paddy Power 10k, it's just as easily taking out loans, credit cards and remortgaging to feed the addiction.
Yup - you could also mug someone for the money to gamble with if you so wished.
My son got married about 8 years ago,I know he earned good money but always seemed skint,I never pushed him on why this was,every time the subject came up,it was met with stoney silence.When he left home,I had the dubious pleasure of disposing of his left behinds.I was shocked ,throughout his room where statements from bookies,Paddy Power etc.,he had lost thousands over the years.He should have spoke to me,I could have helped.Luckily,he did not get into serious debt,seemingly,when his wages run out,he stopped for the time being(he may have borrowed money I dont know).He is lucky,no doubt getting married helped and I am pretty sure the addiction is passed.The government earn too much from this industry,so they wont ban advertising,(although they banned smoking adverts ),but such is the coverage on TV etc.and the ease a child can become addicted,something must be done.Peronally I would make gambling debts unenforcable by Law,that would stop the betting companies pushing for money from people already in trouble.
But surely you pay up front to the the vast majority of the bookies.......so any corresponding debts would manifest themselves elsewhere?
Correct. There are very, very few credit accounts these days and credit cards cannot be used. So the money is up front.
Gambling debts became enforceable with the advent of the Gambling Act 2005. Taking into account the above, being enforceable primarily gives the right to a customer to enforce a payout - so be careful what you wish for @thickandthin63
Whilst that's true, it would take me about 2 mins to get the 5k from my credit card into my bank account. Gambling debt doesn't have to be about owing Paddy Power 10k, it's just as easily taking out loans, credit cards and remortgaging to feed the addiction.
Yup - you could also mug someone for the money to gamble with if you so wished.
Or you could money launder some. William Hill, Ladbrokes and Boylesports all fined for allowing this to happen in recent years:
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
My interpretation is that his company definitely do look to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money - but have processes and procedures in place to try and ensure that they can identify (and not then target) the problem cases.
Which is of course understandable. At the end of the day they are a business who can only make money with people losing theirs with nothing in return. In fairness to Bob, I don't doubt they take some precautions to stop problems gamblers and I don't think it's necessarily easy to do. End of the day, there's no set amount that someone can afford to lose as affordability is different for each person.
My main criticism is the advertising to be honest. It's forced in people's faces all the time and for those who have a problem it doesn't help them resist the urges. I appreciate the advertising is to remind those people who do just like a small wager that that company is there to beat off its rivals, but I think it's gone a bit far.
Gambling is a desire people have, some people, and it is unlikely to be eradicated. Because people will find a way, and because of the desire in society not to shackle behaviour but allow liberty. I get a lottery ticket (I think the term ‘play the lottery’ is a ridiculous tautological descriptor), but for that I am purchasing a daydream, and believe it or not am glad that it is a way to support the arts. Given that gambling organisations become eye-wateringly rich, where those at the top wish to live off the interest of the interest, for them and all their families, then I would regulate and tax them to within an inch of their lives. I would also ban all advertising for any kind of gambling, including the random lottery. It is disingenuous to argue that advertising should be allowed because all it is doing is sort of comparing Ladbrookes and William Hill. Celebrating and enjoying a bit of luck is fine, to suggest gambling has anything to do with skill and judgement isn’t. The skill and judgement in the industry lies with the gambling organisations who use skill and judgement to kind of have a licence to print money. Regulate, tax, regulate, tax…ad infinitum.
My son got married about 8 years ago,I know he earned good money but always seemed skint,I never pushed him on why this was,every time the subject came up,it was met with stoney silence.When he left home,I had the dubious pleasure of disposing of his left behinds.I was shocked ,throughout his room where statements from bookies,Paddy Power etc.,he had lost thousands over the years.He should have spoke to me,I could have helped.Luckily,he did not get into serious debt,seemingly,when his wages run out,he stopped for the time being(he may have borrowed money I dont know).He is lucky,no doubt getting married helped and I am pretty sure the addiction is passed.The government earn too much from this industry,so they wont ban advertising,(although they banned smoking adverts ),but such is the coverage on TV etc.and the ease a child can become addicted,something must be done.Peronally I would make gambling debts unenforcable by Law,that would stop the betting companies pushing for money from people already in trouble.
But surely you pay up front to the the vast majority of the bookies.......so any corresponding debts would manifest themselves elsewhere?
Correct. There are very, very few credit accounts these days and credit cards cannot be used. So the money is up front.
Gambling debts became enforceable with the advent of the Gambling Act 2005. Taking into account the above, being enforceable primarily gives the right to a customer to enforce a payout - so be careful what you wish for @thickandthin63
Whilst that's true, it would take me about 2 mins to get the 5k from my credit card into my bank account. Gambling debt doesn't have to be about owing Paddy Power 10k, it's just as easily taking out loans, credit cards and remortgaging to feed the addiction.
With regards to bank loans, remortgaging etc.....I am sure that the customer does not put 'gambling' as the reason for their borrowing.
Look - I totally get that the gambling industry (like most industries) can do better, but we shouldn't be pushing all of the responsibility their way. Total what-aboutery I know........but do we expect pubs and off-licences not to sell booze to ppl who may have a drink problem, or expect shell not to sell fuel to shit drivers?
Yes - industry need to have a responsibility towards the wellbeing of their customers......but there will always need to be a larger degree of personal responsibility required to avoid such problems. You could apply a ridiculous broad brush 'solution' but you would then run the risk of opening up even larger proportions of illegal /unregulated operations.
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
My son got married about 8 years ago,I know he earned good money but always seemed skint,I never pushed him on why this was,every time the subject came up,it was met with stoney silence.When he left home,I had the dubious pleasure of disposing of his left behinds.I was shocked ,throughout his room where statements from bookies,Paddy Power etc.,he had lost thousands over the years.He should have spoke to me,I could have helped.Luckily,he did not get into serious debt,seemingly,when his wages run out,he stopped for the time being(he may have borrowed money I dont know).He is lucky,no doubt getting married helped and I am pretty sure the addiction is passed.The government earn too much from this industry,so they wont ban advertising,(although they banned smoking adverts ),but such is the coverage on TV etc.and the ease a child can become addicted,something must be done.Peronally I would make gambling debts unenforcable by Law,that would stop the betting companies pushing for money from people already in trouble.
But surely you pay up front to the the vast majority of the bookies.......so any corresponding debts would manifest themselves elsewhere?
Correct. There are very, very few credit accounts these days and credit cards cannot be used. So the money is up front.
Gambling debts became enforceable with the advent of the Gambling Act 2005. Taking into account the above, being enforceable primarily gives the right to a customer to enforce a payout - so be careful what you wish for @thickandthin63
Whilst that's true, it would take me about 2 mins to get the 5k from my credit card into my bank account. Gambling debt doesn't have to be about owing Paddy Power 10k, it's just as easily taking out loans, credit cards and remortgaging to feed the addiction.
With regards to bank loans, remortgaging etc.....I am sure that the customer does not put 'gambling' as the reason for their borrowing.
Look - I totally get that the gambling industry (like most industries) can do better, but we shouldn't be pushing all of the responsibility their way. Total what-aboutery I know........but do we expect pubs and off-licences not to sell booze to ppl who may have a drink problem, or expect shell not to sell fuel to shit drivers?
Yes - industry need to have a responsibility towards the wellbeing of their customers......but there will always need to be a larger degree of personal responsibility required to avoid such problems. You could apply a ridiculous broad brush 'solution' but you would then run the risk of opening up even larger proportions of illegal /unregulated operations.
No they don't put it as the reason, but that's not relevant to my point. My point was that just because a company doesn't accept a credit card as payment, doesn't mean they won't be getting money from a credit card as payment.
But yes, of course they shouldn't take all responsibility. People have to be adults to bet, I was last asked for ID in a bookies around 3 years ago (aged 28) and the online verification is pretty decent. Adults should take responsibility for their actions and for every problem gamblers there's a lot more who can control their betting. Like I say, for me it's the advertising which needs to be cut down because betting is constantly shoved in people's faces (and yes, many people feel the same about alcohol).
And yes, I do believe pubs and off-licenses should refuse to sell booze to people who have a drink problem. I understand why they don't, but also in fairness they don't have the balance sheet that companies like Bet365 do. Your comparison with fuel is with respect, ridiculous.
Completely agree with everything you say in the last paragraph.
This must be the 100th time that we have heard Merson's heartrending story and the avarice of bookies is well known by now. Was there anything new discovered or disclosed in this programme ? .. I didn't tune in
My son got married about 8 years ago,I know he earned good money but always seemed skint,I never pushed him on why this was,every time the subject came up,it was met with stoney silence.When he left home,I had the dubious pleasure of disposing of his left behinds.I was shocked ,throughout his room where statements from bookies,Paddy Power etc.,he had lost thousands over the years.He should have spoke to me,I could have helped.Luckily,he did not get into serious debt,seemingly,when his wages run out,he stopped for the time being(he may have borrowed money I dont know).He is lucky,no doubt getting married helped and I am pretty sure the addiction is passed.The government earn too much from this industry,so they wont ban advertising,(although they banned smoking adverts ),but such is the coverage on TV etc.and the ease a child can become addicted,something must be done.Peronally I would make gambling debts unenforcable by Law,that would stop the betting companies pushing for money from people already in trouble.
But surely you pay up front to the the vast majority of the bookies.......so any corresponding debts would manifest themselves elsewhere?
Correct. There are very, very few credit accounts these days and credit cards cannot be used. So the money is up front.
Gambling debts became enforceable with the advent of the Gambling Act 2005. Taking into account the above, being enforceable primarily gives the right to a customer to enforce a payout - so be careful what you wish for @thickandthin63
Whilst that's true, it would take me about 2 mins to get the 5k from my credit card into my bank account. Gambling debt doesn't have to be about owing Paddy Power 10k, it's just as easily taking out loans, credit cards and remortgaging to feed the addiction.
Yup - you could also mug someone for the money to gamble with if you so wished.
Or you could money launder some. William Hill, Ladbrokes and Boylesports all fined for allowing this to happen in recent years:
Are quiz machines in pubs and elsewhere a form of gambling?
Same question would be asked about BOTB.
It’s spot the ball. You choose your prize, which is usually
a car or the cash alternative, and pay accordingly for each guess (e.g., HSE Range is around £5 a go and a supped-up
Honda might be £3 a go). But it’s a panel of judges who decide where the ball
is as, they're not allowed to use the real location of the ball (to prevent
cheating).
I suppose the gambling aspect to this and Seths one above,
is that you’re betting that your answer is correct, but because the outcome of
BOTB is brought about by other’s opinion rather than fact (like the football
scores or the winner of a horse race), does that put another spin on it?
Me and my Mrs have a couple of guesses each every now and
then, depending on how well you can see the players eyes. The most we’ve one is
about £8 credit, which is then rolled over to next time.
I won't share a link to their website due to the nature of thethread, but easy to Google I spose
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
Where did I say that? Of course we do, as does any other commercial operation, but not from those identified as having a problem or potential problem, for which we spend millions on research, AI/algorithm creation and staff dedicated to just this area, and willingly lose millions more in revenue. That's 0.5% - the other 99.5% only play with money where losing would not cause them problems and we have affordability and due diligence processes to ensure where humanly possible that that is the case.
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
Where did I say that? Of course we do, as does any other commercial operation, but not from those identified as having a problem or potential problem, for which we spend millions on research, AI/algorithm creation and staff dedicated to just this area, and willingly lose millions more in revenue. That's 0.5% - the other 99.5% only play with money where losing would not cause them problems and we have affordability and due diligence processes to ensure where humanly possible that that is the case.
So, are those the stats @bobmunro? Of those who gamble, only 1 in 200 has a problem or potential problem?
It must be hard to gauge what constitutes a gambling problem.
Someone could be losing £100k a month but be able to just about afford to. Whereas
someone else could be really successful day to day, but then be £100 overall
out of pocket at the end of the month, making them default on an important bill
payment.
It's all relative, but not sure how analysis can decide that?
Internet and smartphone gambling are the killers, they've completely changed the availability of gambling, so that you never need to leave the house and can gamble through the night on US Baseball matches, Indian cricket, Tennis from Rio, Football from Thailand...
And unlike drink and drugs, there isn't a physical limit which stops you going any further - even the worst alcoholic will crash out at some point
Are quiz machines in pubs and elsewhere a form of gambling?
Same question would be asked about BOTB.
It’s spot the ball. You choose your prize, which is usually
a car or the cash alternative, and pay accordingly for each guess (e.g., HSE Range is around £5 a go and a supped-up
Honda might be £3 a go). But it’s a panel of judges who decide where the ball
is as, they're not allowed to use the real location of the ball (to prevent
cheating).
I suppose the gambling aspect to this and Seths one above,
is that you’re betting that your answer is correct, but because the outcome of
BOTB is brought about by other’s opinion rather than fact (like the football
scores or the winner of a horse race), does that put another spin on it?
Me and my Mrs have a couple of guesses each every now and
then, depending on how well you can see the players eyes. The most we’ve one is
about £8 credit, which is then rolled over to next time.
I won't share a link to their website due to the nature of thethread, but easy to Google I spose
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
Where did I say that? Of course we do, as does any other commercial operation, but not from those identified as having a problem or potential problem, for which we spend millions on research, AI/algorithm creation and staff dedicated to just this area, and willingly lose millions more in revenue. That's 0.5% - the other 99.5% only play with money where losing would not cause them problems and we have affordability and due diligence processes to ensure where humanly possible that that is the case.
So, are those the stats @bobmunro? Of those who gamble, only 1 in 200 has a problem or potential problem?
Just asking, as I would have suspected higher.
Only 1 in 200 funnily enough are successful enough to make a consistent profit from gambling. That 0.5% diminishes, of course, once bookies close/restrict accounts so ultimately there will be a lot less successful gamblers allowed to bet than those that are allowed to do so who have issues in limiting themselves. And a minute amount are long term successful compared to those that make a meaningful profit over time.
The one thing a bookmaker is desperate to do is to keep someone who consistently loses. It doesn't have to be someone who loses masses because each customer who does so is a profit to them. The more profitable you are to them the more incentives are thrown at them. Boxes at big sporting events owned by bookies are full of failed gamblers.
What a bookie does want is their outlet to be that punter's only "shop". It's why Betfair moved from just being an Exchange to offering poker, casino and ultimately becoming hypocrites themselves by having their own sportsbook with fixed odds. Simply because they did not want their customers just betting with them on their Exchange and in the knowledge that so many of their smaller markets lacked liquidity they used the Sportsbook to provide odds accordingly.
This must be the 100th time that we have heard Merson's heartrending story and the avarice of bookies is well known by now. Was there anything new discovered or disclosed in this programme ? .. I didn't tune in
I didn't watch either but to be very cynical as to whether there is much 'new' information here he does seem to have a new book out for which he is no doubt financially rewarded and presumably is helping him to patch up his personal finances.
Gambling isn't going away anytime soon. It creates problems for some clearly but equally employs many and raises tax revenue. No simple solutions I suspect.
Equally 'no such thing as a poor bookmaker' I seem to recall as an expression tells you that most punters rarely end up winning overall.
Is any kind of self regulation in the gambling industry worthwhile? I find it quite funny that gambling institutions go on about the remedial work they do to help problem gamblers when they contribute to creating that problem in the first place. Like ‘I’ll break your legs, but it’s ok because I can supply a splint made out of your broken bones’. I would be a more honest situation if the starting point was for the gambling companies to say they’re going to milk things for everything they can (like any other commercial organisation), and not bother with the smokescreen distraction of help programmes. Then it would be up to society to fight back…if motivated. The best way to fight back is to hit the gambling firms in the pocket, very hard indeed, more than what happens now anyway. Lets be honest, gambling firms want to exploit the human frailty that will always be there, and in a liberal society they should be allowed to crack on. But that liberal society should tax them at at least, what is the number, 99.5% of all profit. Before long someone will mention all the gainful employment in the gambling industry.
Self regulation in most industries is worthless. Like it or not we like in a capitalist world where profit is key to business. I would suggest therefore that asking industries themselves to identify the trade-off between profit and customer wellness is doomed to failure.
I work in the investment banking industry......one which pretty much brought the world to it's knees in the late 00s. Since then masses of international and domestic regulation has been (rightly) forced on the industry to avoid a recurrence (hopefully). Additional self policing by more ethical companies will always be well received - but stringent national / international regulation is the only real way to keep industries in check.
Comments
I think that it is very difficult (and wrong) to try and apply a broad brush solution to something that (I assume) is an edge case in terms of percentage of ppl that get themselves into real trouble gambling vs the total number of ppl who 'gamble responsibly'.
We have a few guys from within the industry here who have stated that they are bound by legislation to try and identify these problem cases and act ethically accordingly and I for one certainly would not doubt what they say. I'm sure things can always be improved on but it seems that the responsible firms are at least trying to do the right thing.
Whenever you see something like last night's documentary - it will always raise emotions but again my assumption is that these cases are far from the norm. I would not want any solution to impinge on the enjoyment of the vast majority of ppl that do gamble within their means. Any additional legislation or whatever should always bear this in mind IMO.
I also assume that the internet age has brought in access to a number of unregistered / unregulated firms and these operations should 100% be either brought within legislation or otherwise closed down where possible.
That said, I have two sons - the 28 year old is a professional gambler although, in the main, he is a trader specifically on cricket. He dropped out of Uni after two years studying maths and statistics having already amassed a sum of money and been banned/restricted to peanuts by every bookmaker in the country. He also pays what is called a Premium Charge by Betfair on their exchange which impacts massively on his profits. My younger son is 18 but, unlike his brother, isn't "rain man" when it comes to understanding odds and value. But guess what? Having opened accounts with a few bookmakers he is constantly being sent free bets to encourage him to bet which he duly uses and abuses.
If my eldest were to take over his brother's account, it would take these bookmakers a nanosecond to work out that it wasn't the 18 year old placing those bets. Size of bets, success rate, patterns of betting and even IP address would be enough for their systems to work that out.
So all bookmakers can identify good and bad gamblers. But most prefer to spend their resources and time to identify the former category and do something about them rather than the latter one.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ladbrokes-coral-bookmakers-fined-money-laundering-a9028731.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/boylesports-fined-2-8m-over-money-laundering-risk-assessment-1.4406685
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/uk-bookmaker-william-hill-fined-for-money-laundering-failures.html
My main criticism is the advertising to be honest. It's forced in people's faces all the time and for those who have a problem it doesn't help them resist the urges. I appreciate the advertising is to remind those people who do just like a small wager that that company is there to beat off its rivals, but I think it's gone a bit far.
I get a lottery ticket (I think the term ‘play the lottery’ is a ridiculous tautological descriptor), but for that I am purchasing a daydream, and believe it or not am glad that it is a way to support the arts.
Given that gambling organisations become eye-wateringly rich, where those at the top wish to live off the interest of the interest, for them and all their families, then I would regulate and tax them to within an inch of their lives.
I would also ban all advertising for any kind of gambling, including the random lottery. It is disingenuous to argue that advertising should be allowed because all it is doing is sort of comparing Ladbrookes and William Hill.
Celebrating and enjoying a bit of luck is fine, to suggest gambling has anything to do with skill and judgement isn’t.
The skill and judgement in the industry lies with the gambling organisations who use skill and judgement to kind of have a licence to print money.
Regulate, tax, regulate, tax…ad infinitum.
Look - I totally get that the gambling industry (like most industries) can do better, but we shouldn't be pushing all of the responsibility their way.
Total what-aboutery I know........but do we expect pubs and off-licences not to sell booze to ppl who may have a drink problem, or expect shell not to sell fuel to shit drivers?
Yes - industry need to have a responsibility towards the wellbeing of their customers......but there will always need to be a larger degree of personal responsibility required to avoid such problems. You could apply a ridiculous broad brush 'solution' but you would then run the risk of opening up even larger proportions of illegal /unregulated operations.
But yes, of course they shouldn't take all responsibility. People have to be adults to bet, I was last asked for ID in a bookies around 3 years ago (aged 28) and the online verification is pretty decent. Adults should take responsibility for their actions and for every problem gamblers there's a lot more who can control their betting. Like I say, for me it's the advertising which needs to be cut down because betting is constantly shoved in people's faces (and yes, many people feel the same about alcohol).
And yes, I do believe pubs and off-licenses should refuse to sell booze to people who have a drink problem. I understand why they don't, but also in fairness they don't have the balance sheet that companies like Bet365 do. Your comparison with fuel is with respect, ridiculous.
Completely agree with everything you say in the last paragraph.
It’s spot the ball. You choose your prize, which is usually a car or the cash alternative, and pay accordingly for each guess (e.g., HSE Range is around £5 a go and a supped-up Honda might be £3 a go). But it’s a panel of judges who decide where the ball is as, they're not allowed to use the real location of the ball (to prevent cheating).
I suppose the gambling aspect to this and Seths one above, is that you’re betting that your answer is correct, but because the outcome of BOTB is brought about by other’s opinion rather than fact (like the football scores or the winner of a horse race), does that put another spin on it?
Me and my Mrs have a couple of guesses each every now and then, depending on how well you can see the players eyes. The most we’ve one is about £8 credit, which is then rolled over to next time.
I won't share a link to their website due to the nature of thethread, but easy to Google I spose
I bet you can put another one on the next day.
If that is the case, then that does need looking into
So, are those the stats @bobmunro? Of those who gamble, only 1 in 200 has a problem or potential problem?
Just asking, as I would have suspected higher.
It must be hard to gauge what constitutes a gambling problem. Someone could be losing £100k a month but be able to just about afford to. Whereas someone else could be really successful day to day, but then be £100 overall out of pocket at the end of the month, making them default on an important bill payment.
It's all relative, but not sure how analysis can decide that?And unlike drink and drugs, there isn't a physical limit which stops you going any further - even the worst alcoholic will crash out at some point
The one thing a bookmaker is desperate to do is to keep someone who consistently loses. It doesn't have to be someone who loses masses because each customer who does so is a profit to them. The more profitable you are to them the more incentives are thrown at them. Boxes at big sporting events owned by bookies are full of failed gamblers.
What a bookie does want is their outlet to be that punter's only "shop". It's why Betfair moved from just being an Exchange to offering poker, casino and ultimately becoming hypocrites themselves by having their own sportsbook with fixed odds. Simply because they did not want their customers just betting with them on their Exchange and in the knowledge that so many of their smaller markets lacked liquidity they used the Sportsbook to provide odds accordingly.
Gambling isn't going away anytime soon. It creates problems for some clearly but equally employs many and raises tax revenue. No simple solutions I suspect.
Equally 'no such thing as a poor bookmaker' I seem to recall as an expression tells you that most punters rarely end up winning overall.
I find it quite funny that gambling institutions go on about the remedial work they do to help problem gamblers when they contribute to creating that problem in the first place.
Like ‘I’ll break your legs, but it’s ok because I can supply a splint made out of your broken bones’.
I would be a more honest situation if the starting point was for the gambling companies to say they’re going to milk things for everything they can (like any other commercial organisation), and not bother with the smokescreen distraction of help programmes.
Then it would be up to society to fight back…if motivated.
The best way to fight back is to hit the gambling firms in the pocket, very hard indeed, more than what happens now anyway.
Lets be honest, gambling firms want to exploit the human frailty that will always be there, and in a liberal society they should be allowed to crack on. But that liberal society should tax them at at least, what is the number, 99.5% of all profit.
Before long someone will mention all the gainful employment in the gambling industry.
Like it or not we like in a capitalist world where profit is key to business. I would suggest therefore that asking industries themselves to identify the trade-off between profit and customer wellness is doomed to failure.
I work in the investment banking industry......one which pretty much brought the world to it's knees in the late 00s. Since then masses of international and domestic regulation has been (rightly) forced on the industry to avoid a recurrence (hopefully).
Additional self policing by more ethical companies will always be well received - but stringent national / international regulation is the only real way to keep industries in check.