Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Affordability checks on gambling
Ronnietheghost
Posts: 65
The nanny state is attempting to curb gambling by making bookmakers etc carry out affordability checks on people’s finances before they are allowed to gamble. The racing post has started a petition against this proposal so if you like a flutter or two this may affect you .Bet responsibly .
0
Comments
-
About time bookies were forced to join the rest of the retail world. You think DFS lets you have a sofa before running checks on you?13
-
Got no problem with that.
Can we have the affordability checks across the board though.
3 -
It's a great idea1
-
Do DFS run checks when you're paying in cash?cafcfan said:About time bookies were forced to join the rest of the retail world. You think DFS lets you have a sofa before running checks on you?4 -
There are very few cases of sofa addiction.cafcfan1990 said:
Do DFS run checks when you're paying in cash?cafcfan said:About time bookies were forced to join the rest of the retail world. You think DFS lets you have a sofa before running checks on you?23 -
Lady I work with has a dog who might qualify. She (the dog, not the colleague) has eaten two in the last 6 months.Chizz said:
There are very few cases of sofa addiction.cafcfan1990 said:
Do DFS run checks when you're paying in cash?cafcfan said:About time bookies were forced to join the rest of the retail world. You think DFS lets you have a sofa before running checks on you?1 -
Average credit card debt is just over a £1000 per person, how much of that is down to gambling?
Got no problem with the goverment telling me I can only bet so much a week/month.
But if I want to pay for a £5000 holiday do affordability checks on that aswell.1 -
Not against affordability checks nor am I fan of bookmakers generally, but I don't think the comparison is valid. Checks are run because you're getting credit, it's to protect the business not the buyer.Chizz said:
There are very few cases of sofa addiction.cafcfan1990 said:
Do DFS run checks when you're paying in cash?cafcfan said:About time bookies were forced to join the rest of the retail world. You think DFS lets you have a sofa before running checks on you?1 -
Running checks on cash bets sounds like an initiative to target money laundering/tax evasion neatly dressed up as helping problem gamblers.cafcfan1990 said:
Do DFS run checks when you're paying in cash?cafcfan said:About time bookies were forced to join the rest of the retail world. You think DFS lets you have a sofa before running checks on you?1 -
You cannot use a credit card anymore on a betting siteclb74 said:Average credit card debt is just over a £1000 per person, how much of that is down to gambling?
Got no problem with the goverment telling me I can only bet so much a week/month.
But if I want to pay for a £5000 holiday do affordability checks on that aswell.5 - Sponsored links:
-
No but you can still rack up debt because of gamblingJohnnyH2 said:
You cannot use a credit card anymore on a betting siteclb74 said:Average credit card debt is just over a £1000 per person, how much of that is down to gambling?
Got no problem with the goverment telling me I can only bet so much a week/month.
But if I want to pay for a £5000 holiday do affordability checks on that aswell.0 -
It's crazy that a man who spends millions on horse flesh then has to provide proof of finance to have a bet. Racing will lose out because the betting turnover will reduce as people will be driven to the black market. A ban on people betting on credit cards should have been introduced years ago.
1 -
A quick google found this background:
Some background: the plan as envisaged is that an initial level of “unintrusive” financial vulnerability checks will be triggered when a punter has a net loss of £125 within a rolling 30-day period, or £500 over a rolling 365-day period. The checks would use publicly available information such as bankruptcy orders, or a significant history of unpaid debts.
Further checks will then be triggered by losses of £1,000 within a 24-hour period or £2,000 within a 90-day period. An important point to remember is that winnings outside the previous seven days (for the former trigger) and outside the previous 90 days (for the latter) will not be taken into consideration when calculating net loss.
So as I read more about punters who are losing being identified and challenged/checked
Not sure it’s wrong and may help some who otherwise end up losing more than they can afford
Looks to me to be an extra hurdle which may stop some getting in too deep
0 -
think some of you are missing the point , if you try to have a bet, they will run checks to see if you can afford it , this may mean you proving you have sufficient funds and income to them, i e with copies of bank statements, payslips etc
it’s to save you from yourself and you cannot spend your own money as you like.
a slippery slope maybe… when you buy your fifth pint in future the publican may have to check you can afford it and the kids are not starving at home2 -
this is not just credit cards , debit cards apply for possible affordability checks, even by cash at the racecourse or local bookies0
-
I can rack up debt going on holiday, will they do a check on that?cafcfan1990 said:
No but you can still rack up debt because of gamblingJohnnyH2 said:
You cannot use a credit card anymore on a betting siteclb74 said:Average credit card debt is just over a £1000 per person, how much of that is down to gambling?
Got no problem with the goverment telling me I can only bet so much a week/month.
But if I want to pay for a £5000 holiday do affordability checks on that aswell.3 -
First rule of gambling - Only bet what you can afford to losecafcfan1990 said:
No but you can still rack up debt because of gamblingJohnnyH2 said:
You cannot use a credit card anymore on a betting siteclb74 said:Average credit card debt is just over a £1000 per person, how much of that is down to gambling?
Got no problem with the goverment telling me I can only bet so much a week/month.
But if I want to pay for a £5000 holiday do affordability checks on that aswell.2 -
Unfortunately, like most things, there is a distinct lack of joined up thinking, or industry experts involved, in the process of designing and implementing what should be a common sense system.
As it’s currently proposed, I do not think affordability checks will help identify problem gamblers and only serve to aggravate the majority of punters who are able to have a bet safely.1 -
Chizz said:
There are very few cases of sofa addiction.cafcfan1990 said:
Do DFS run checks when you're paying in cash?cafcfan said:About time bookies were forced to join the rest of the retail world. You think DFS lets you have a sofa before running checks on you?
Come to one of my local Armchairs Anonymous meetings and you might change your mind. 😞4 -
Ronnietheghost said:think some of you are missing the point , if you try to have a bet, they will run checks to see if you can afford it , this may mean you proving you have sufficient funds and income to them, i e with copies of bank statements, payslips etc
it’s to save you from yourself and you cannot spend your own money as you like.
a slippery slope maybe… when you buy your fifth pint in future the publican may have to check you can afford it and the kids are not starving at home
Not sure it's the point you wanted to put across, but if kids are starving then it's absolutely the right thing.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Not what I read - see my earlier post.Ronnietheghost said:think some of you are missing the point , if you try to have a bet, they will run checks to see if you can afford it , this may mean you proving you have sufficient funds and income to them, i e with copies of bank statements, payslips etc
it’s to save you from yourself and you cannot spend your own money as you like.
a slippery slope maybe… when you buy your fifth pint in future the publican may have to check you can afford it and the kids are not starving at home
It read as checks if you lose and trigger some thresholds. Not for starting out I don't think.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/04/talking-horses-affordability-checks-betting-gaming-gambling-commission
0 -
Gambling can be a serious addiction and is the direct cause of over 400 suicides a year. I'm sure we've all seen the documentaries (i.e. the Paul Merson one) or know someone effected. A serious problem gambler will lose their money the day they get paid and borrow wherever and from whoever they can, I have one in the family.
I think it's right in certain circumstances checks are carried out. Although I assume the majority of this is online rather than at the track or in a high street bookmakers as I'm not sure how you would police someone betting in various shops in a day. But equally that could apply to someone with numerous online accounts.
It's good in my view that it's being looked at, as to the plan being sufficient, workable etc I don't know.0 -
who William Hill? Can't see why it would be necessary...clb74 said:
I can rack up debt going on holiday, will they do a check on that?cafcfan1990 said:
No but you can still rack up debt because of gamblingJohnnyH2 said:
You cannot use a credit card anymore on a betting siteclb74 said:Average credit card debt is just over a £1000 per person, how much of that is down to gambling?
Got no problem with the goverment telling me I can only bet so much a week/month.
But if I want to pay for a £5000 holiday do affordability checks on that aswell.0 -
Thing is Rob.Rob7Lee said:Gambling can be a serious addiction and is the direct cause of over 400 suicides a year. I'm sure we've all seen the documentaries (i.e. the Paul Merson one) or know someone effected. A serious problem gambler will lose their money the day they get paid and borrow wherever and from whoever they can, I have one in the family.
I think it's right in certain circumstances checks are carried out. Although I assume the majority of this is online rather than at the track or in a high street bookmakers as I'm not sure how you would police someone betting in various shops in a day. But equally that could apply to someone with numerous online accounts.
It's good in my view that it's being looked at, as to the plan being sufficient, workable etc I don't know.
How many people commit suicide over debt a year?
0 -
Of course, there are people addicted to sofas. I know someone who is addicted to peanut butter that spends all his money on gambling. He does a lot of spread betting.Chizz said:
There are very few cases of sofa addiction.cafcfan1990 said:
Do DFS run checks when you're paying in cash?cafcfan said:About time bookies were forced to join the rest of the retail world. You think DFS lets you have a sofa before running checks on you?6 -
No idea, maybe as many? maybe less? maybe more? Not sure of the point?clb74 said:
Thing is Rob.Rob7Lee said:Gambling can be a serious addiction and is the direct cause of over 400 suicides a year. I'm sure we've all seen the documentaries (i.e. the Paul Merson one) or know someone effected. A serious problem gambler will lose their money the day they get paid and borrow wherever and from whoever they can, I have one in the family.
I think it's right in certain circumstances checks are carried out. Although I assume the majority of this is online rather than at the track or in a high street bookmakers as I'm not sure how you would police someone betting in various shops in a day. But equally that could apply to someone with numerous online accounts.
It's good in my view that it's being looked at, as to the plan being sufficient, workable etc I don't know.
How many people commit suicide over debt a year?
The leading cause of death in the UK is Dementia, doesn't mean you do nothing for any other illnesses that may cause death.2 -
But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and in particular variance. Every gambler goes through periods of losing more than winning and periods of winning more than losing.valleynick66 said:
Not what I read - see my earlier post.Ronnietheghost said:think some of you are missing the point , if you try to have a bet, they will run checks to see if you can afford it , this may mean you proving you have sufficient funds and income to them, i e with copies of bank statements, payslips etc
it’s to save you from yourself and you cannot spend your own money as you like.
a slippery slope maybe… when you buy your fifth pint in future the publican may have to check you can afford it and the kids are not starving at home
It read as checks if you lose and trigger some thresholds. Not for starting out I don't think.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/04/talking-horses-affordability-checks-betting-gaming-gambling-commission
Stick with me on this imaginary scenario…
Imagine a bookmaker comes out with a brand new heads or tails game that can only be played once per day and if you win you get the perfect 1/1 payout with no bookie overround.
A punter with no history of gambling addiction and enjoys flipping coins signs up and wants to bet £50 per day on heads. The first three days all land tails. You’ve exhausted your 30 day limit in three days.
Meanwhile, statistics tells us that there’s a high probability that in a 30 day rolling period, you’ll see 15 of each outcome and have lost no money.
All the loss limiting legislation will have done is cost the punter £150 with no opportunity for variance to take effect, ready for them to repeat the same process the following month.
As I said, this will catch a significant number of legitimate punters who enjoy a bet but don’t have a problem. And the real problem gamblers won’t be sufficiently identified as they’ll be lost in the crowd.2 -
This has been in place for quite a while now at casinos and online. checks are for both affordability and to ensure funds are from a legitimate source/no money laundering is happening. It caused quite a few problems with online poker players when it first came in but it's pretty much accepted now1
-
Callumcafc said:
But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and in particular variance. Every gambler goes through periods of losing more than winning and periods of winning more than losing.valleynick66 said:
Not what I read - see my earlier post.Ronnietheghost said:think some of you are missing the point , if you try to have a bet, they will run checks to see if you can afford it , this may mean you proving you have sufficient funds and income to them, i e with copies of bank statements, payslips etc
it’s to save you from yourself and you cannot spend your own money as you like.
a slippery slope maybe… when you buy your fifth pint in future the publican may have to check you can afford it and the kids are not starving at home
It read as checks if you lose and trigger some thresholds. Not for starting out I don't think.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/04/talking-horses-affordability-checks-betting-gaming-gambling-commission
Stick with me on this imaginary scenario…
Imagine a bookmaker comes out with a brand new heads or tails game that can only be played once per day and if you win you get the perfect 1/1 payout with no bookie overround.
A punter with no history of gambling addiction and enjoys flipping coins signs up and wants to bet £50 per day on heads. The first three days all land tails. You’ve exhausted your 30 day limit in three days.
Meanwhile, statistics tells us that there’s a high probability that in a 30 day rolling period, you’ll see 15 of each outcome and have lost no money.
All the loss limiting legislation will have done is cost the punter £150 with no opportunity for variance to take effect, ready for them to repeat the same process the following month.
As I said, this will catch a significant number of legitimate punters who enjoy a bet but don’t have a problem. And the real problem gamblers won’t be sufficiently identified as they’ll be lost in the crowd.
Why will it stop anyone who enjoys a bet? As I understand it, it's just an affordability check, not a flat 'you've lost x, that's it for the day/week/month' etc.1 -
Rob7Lee said:Callumcafc said:
But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and in particular variance. Every gambler goes through periods of losing more than winning and periods of winning more than losing.valleynick66 said:
Not what I read - see my earlier post.Ronnietheghost said:think some of you are missing the point , if you try to have a bet, they will run checks to see if you can afford it , this may mean you proving you have sufficient funds and income to them, i e with copies of bank statements, payslips etc
it’s to save you from yourself and you cannot spend your own money as you like.
a slippery slope maybe… when you buy your fifth pint in future the publican may have to check you can afford it and the kids are not starving at home
It read as checks if you lose and trigger some thresholds. Not for starting out I don't think.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/04/talking-horses-affordability-checks-betting-gaming-gambling-commission
Stick with me on this imaginary scenario…
Imagine a bookmaker comes out with a brand new heads or tails game that can only be played once per day and if you win you get the perfect 1/1 payout with no bookie overround.
A punter with no history of gambling addiction and enjoys flipping coins signs up and wants to bet £50 per day on heads. The first three days all land tails. You’ve exhausted your 30 day limit in three days.
Meanwhile, statistics tells us that there’s a high probability that in a 30 day rolling period, you’ll see 15 of each outcome and have lost no money.
All the loss limiting legislation will have done is cost the punter £150 with no opportunity for variance to take effect, ready for them to repeat the same process the following month.
As I said, this will catch a significant number of legitimate punters who enjoy a bet but don’t have a problem. And the real problem gamblers won’t be sufficiently identified as they’ll be lost in the crowd.
Why will it stop anyone who enjoys a bet? As I understand it, it's just an affordability check, not a flat 'you've lost x, that's it for the day/week/month' etc.In an ideal world, any check would be completely seamless to the point where the punter isn't even aware it's happened.But people are understandably fearful that affordability checks will look like the current situation where you supply a copy of your passport, driver's license, six months of payslips, an electricity bill, a selfie holding said electricity bill etc.I don't know how you can do an effective affordability check without requiring some of this private information from people. In which case a lot of people won't bother and possibly go somewhere else where they haven't been soft limited.
There's an entirely separate issue of bookmakers blocking withdrawals under the guise of affordability checks which has to stop too. The game is already stacked in favour of the bookmakers, IMO the purpose of reforms should be finding ways to level the playing field through regulating their practices instead of restricting consumers.3
