Paul Merson: Football, Gambling & Me

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.

4Real said:

bobmunro said:

Off_it said:

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.

bobmunro said:

SuedeAdidas said:

thickandthin63 said:

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. 

cafcfan1990 said:

bobmunro said:

SuedeAdidas said:

thickandthin63 said:

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.

SuedeAdidas said:

4Real said:

bobmunro said:

Off_it said:

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. 

cafcfan1990 said:

bobmunro said:

SuedeAdidas said:

thickandthin63 said:

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.

4Real said:

bobmunro said:

Off_it said:

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.

Bet you it ain't

Addick Addict said:

SuedeAdidas said:

cafcfan1990 said:

bobmunro said:

SuedeAdidas said:

thickandthin63 said:

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:

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

Yup - Legislation doing what it is supposed to.

Addickted said:

So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.

Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.

You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.

ValleyGary said:

Addickted said:

So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.

Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.

You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.

So what happens if you lose a £300 acca?

I bet you can put another one on the next day.

bobmunro said:

4Real said:

bobmunro said:

Off_it said:

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.

Dave Rudd said:

bobmunro said:

4Real said:

bobmunro said:

Off_it said:

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.