Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Paul Merson: Football, Gambling & Me
Comments
-
lots of businesses offer hospitality in an effort to get money from you in the long runStu_of_Kunming said:
Absolutely this, I grew up in a nice house, with a huge garden and my parents owned their own business, by the time I was 18 we lived in the Cherry Orchard and my parents had nothing, my old man had gambled EVERYTHING away.Addick Addict said:
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.Dave Rudd said:bobmunro said:
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.4Real said:
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.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?
I am afraid that is balls.
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.
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.
Years after finally kicking the habit he was still getting invites to boxes for FA Finals etc, the industry is vile and anyone claiming most of these companies don’t prey on the weak and vulnerable are, imo lying.0 -
seth plum said:I think the, at the moment rather vague, concept about people losing what they can afford to lose could well be rather a can of worms.
Is the attraction of gambling simply either winning or losing?
Is there a space or place that despite inevitably losing there is something attractive or fun or time killing or challenging along the way?
I suppose gambling on horses is different to the turn of a card, or where a roulette ball might land, a person can convince themselves their special savvy is rewarded.
Is that the attraction beyond either winning or losing? Well especially when being a loser is an eventual inevitability. Is there a thrill in watching a roulette ball spin?
What push points do the gambling advertisers press?
There is a campaign starring the bloke we all kind of like, Ray Winston, the bloke of blokes that goes on about we are connected, it’s sport and we make you feel up close and involved, you will be master of cutting edge technology. Young faces are seen happy, international and glamorous locations, people eating and drinking in a colourful and party kind of way.
What are the push points there?
What about the lovely blokey bloke Ray Winston striding up to the camera and saying ‘Risk your money with us, you might win, you might lose…mainly lose actually…but that’s what we are offering you, go for it! (gruff tone) but please gamble responsibly’?
Speak for yourself.
I think that the bloke is a dick, or at least the persona that he chooses to portray is that of a dick.
Not only is his acting laughable (have you seen in him in Beowulf? "Dis ain't war ... dis is slawter"), but the whole East End gangster character makes me cringe.
Go back to the 1950's, Ray ... you'll be in good cuh-uh-nee.0 -
I loved Sexy Beast.
Also Ben Kingsley is awesome in that.
I think a lot of people like Ray Winstone from that film.0 -
I liked Beowulf. I think when Seth used the term 'we all', he probably meant a lot of people to be fair.0
-
On course bookies must struggle to limit their punters. There's enough of them at every meeting to shop around if you win too much from an individual bookmaker.0
-
But most of them don’t take advantage of addicts and the mentally ill/unstable.MrOneLung said:
lots of businesses offer hospitality in an effort to get money from you in the long runStu_of_Kunming said:
Absolutely this, I grew up in a nice house, with a huge garden and my parents owned their own business, by the time I was 18 we lived in the Cherry Orchard and my parents had nothing, my old man had gambled EVERYTHING away.Addick Addict said:
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.Dave Rudd said:bobmunro said:
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.4Real said:
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.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?
I am afraid that is balls.
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.
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.
Years after finally kicking the habit he was still getting invites to boxes for FA Finals etc, the industry is vile and anyone claiming most of these companies don’t prey on the weak and vulnerable are, imo lying.2 -
I would imagine that any major wager would either be layed off with the other on course bookies or arbed on the Exchange and that price wouldn't last for long. In any event, the on course price will be inferior to those available with those off course bookies who offer BOG or the Exchange themselves.Addickted said:On course bookies must struggle to limit their punters. There's enough of them at every meeting to shop around if you win too much from an individual bookmaker.0 -
Louis theroux did a good doc on gambling. Based in vagas. Must have been about 20 years ago.
Gambling does create jobs and it generates a lot of income.
Still, if the concept of it was forced to completely stop, I don't think many people would really miss it that much.
It is more of a lust.
If you are down in the dumps and feel like you could also do with a major cash injection. Could be covering debts or dreaming big.
As patronising as this may sound (because it's rather obvious) gambling does provide the possibility of short term quick fix.
Alcohol, drugs, fatty foods, play the same role.
Every now and again, it's a nice treat.
Just don't rely on it. It is not a need.
0 -
What the betting firms could do online is restrict customers to 10% deposit of what your wages are.
You earn £30000 you're allowed to deposit £3000 over the year through the betting industry online.
However I think the betting industry takes more of a kick in than other industries.
I was looking online earlier at the suicide rate for people who are in debt.
Roughly 2000 people a week or 100000 a year attempt suicide because of the debt they are in.
Between me and the wife it works out we can spend just over £40000 on our credit cards if we wished.
Do these credit card firms keep an eye on problem spenders?
Would me or the wife get an email or phone call if over the year we spent £20000 on these cards, asking is everything ok?
If I book a £8000 holiday tonight would TUI get in touch asking if we can afford this holiday?
Does a pub ban a customer who comes through that same door every day of the week?
Telling the customer I'm really worried you might have a drink problem so I'm barring you.
I had a mate who threatened to smash the pub up if they didnt stop serving his brother.
So if we want to come down hard on the betting industry then please do it across the board.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Some companies use hospitality perks to keep winning punters. I get treated to 6-8 events a year and the company have told me why would they restrict or close my account when they can use it to there advantage. I'm not the only one that gets this treatment and that is from the manager of the company.0
-
It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.4
-
How is a winning gambler an advantage to a bookie?killer kish said:Some companies use hospitality perks to keep winning punters. I get treated to 6-8 events a year and the company have told me why would they restrict or close my account when they can use it to there advantage. I'm not the only one that gets this treatment and that is from the manager of the company.0 -
As an apprentice, one of my first tasks was to analyse any high-value “lapsed bettors” - in other words I needed to identify gambling addicts who had stopped gambling. They’re then targeted with personalised messages specific to what they used to bet on (specific horses, football teams, bet types) until they bet again and are no longer in the lapsed category. It’s someone’s job to do that every hour of every day in their working life - you wouldn’t believe the amount of money these messages generate.
0 -
colthe3rd said:
How is a winning gambler an advantage to a bookie?killer kish said:Some companies use hospitality perks to keep winning punters. I get treated to 6-8 events a year and the company have told me why would they restrict or close my account when they can use it to there advantage. I'm not the only one that gets this treatment and that is from the manager of the company.
It's like inside information and prices can be adjusted accordingly0 -
There's no liquidity in less followed markets where a 'pro' might reasonably have an edge.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Admittedly his bets will obviously depend on what odds he can get and where, but why can't he just use an exchange like Betfair? I imagine most if not all professional gamblers use that for the very reason highlighted.cafctom said:
I was listening to The Price of Football podcast earlier this week, and they had a professional gambler interviewed on there. His sole income is from researching, analysing betting markets and odds to make his money through winning bets.ValleyGary said:
You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.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.
He said that he can no longer have betting accounts in his own name now, as they’ve all caught onto the fact that he wins a lot more than he loses.
The whole thing just seems like a con (from the bookie side).
On a side note - he was also a Rochdale fan so worth tuning in to to hear their discussion around the takeover/Matt Southall.0 -
You are talking from a position far removed from reality, or talking out of your arse - I’m not quite sure which but I have an idea.JaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.
I like to think I have a reasonable reputation on this forum and can assure you I speak the truth - and that’s from a position of actually fucking knowing.12 -
A scummy thing to say about a respected poster @bobmunro who has only ever been reasonable in his responses on this and other threads about gambling.JaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.
Whether people agree with him or not his views are very relevant to the debate and always considered.
He doesn't need me to defend him but Bob makes his living in a legal and heavily regulated industry that the vast majority of users enjoy without any problem.7 -
Your post has actually made me laugh out loud. The fact is, it is morally fine to work in that industryJaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.Can I ask what line of business your work is?2 -
6
- Sponsored links:
-
Refugee traffickingMrOneLung said:
Your post has actually made me laugh out loud. The fact is, it is morally fine to work in that industryJaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.Can I ask what line of business your work is?4 -
He can stick that one where the sun don't shine.Addickted said:0 -
Thanks, Henners. Maybe I’m a sensitive soul and perhaps I should let accusations of being called a liar and immoral go over my head. But then again ….Henry Irving said:
A scummy thing to say about a respected poster @bobmunro who has only ever been reasonable in his responses on this and other threads about gambling.JaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.
Whether people agree with him or not his views are very relevant to the debate and always considered.
He doesn't need me to defend him but Bob makes his living in a legal and heavily regulated industry that the vast majority of users enjoy without any problem.
My last post on this thread and a considerable time out on any other thread.
What I find somewhat ironic (and piss boiling) is how this forum has a multitude of threads about betting:
- Beat the Bookie
- Sport of Kings
- Cheltenham
- Royal Ascot
- The Grand National (probably the most looked forward to thread in the sporting calendar thanks to the amazing insight of @PeanutsMolloy
- Weekend Betting
- Charlton to win, promotion, top half (yes 9/4 was great value for the umpteenth time)
- The thread about Boxing
i could go on.
There will be contributors to this bookie bashing thread and others that attack the industry who are also avid contributors to the threads listed above. Just a hint of hypocrisy?Then there are others in this thread and other similar threads who whinge and moan because they can’t get on! You couldn’t make it up.
All I try to do is give a bit of the other side - attempting to get some sort of balance. I am not going to stand by and watch the industry I have been in for forty years have the shit ripped out of it by hypocrites and I’ll-informed opinion.
Nuff said - over and out (of here).17 -
Good point about the number of betting related threads on CL @bobmunro.0
-
- Whose Rack?bobmunro said:
Thanks, Henners. Maybe I’m a sensitive soul and perhaps I should let accusations of being called a liar and immoral go over my head. But then again ….Henry Irving said:
A scummy thing to say about a respected poster @bobmunro who has only ever been reasonable in his responses on this and other threads about gambling.JaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.
Whether people agree with him or not his views are very relevant to the debate and always considered.
He doesn't need me to defend him but Bob makes his living in a legal and heavily regulated industry that the vast majority of users enjoy without any problem.
My last post on this thread and a considerable time out on any other thread.
What I find somewhat ironic (and piss boiling) is how this forum has a multitude of threads about betting:
- Beat the Bookie
- Sport of Kings
- Cheltenham
- Royal Ascot
- The Grand National (probably the most looked forward to thread in the sporting calendar thanks to the amazing insight of @PeanutsMolloy
- Weekend Betting
- Charlton to win, promotion, top half (yes 9/4 was great value for the umpteenth time)
- The thread about Boxing
i could go on.
There will be contributors to this bookie bashing thread and others that attack the industry who are also avid contributors to the threads listed above. Just a hint of hypocrisy?Then there are others in this thread and other similar threads who whinge and moan because they can’t get on! You couldn’t make it up.
All I try to do is give a bit of the other side - attempting to get some sort of balance. I am not going to stand by and watch the industry I have been in for forty years have the shit ripped out of it by hypocrites and I’ll-informed opinion.
Nuff said - over and out (of here).
Well, I could've given a list of names with odds next to them0 -
I hope you've never drunk in a pub, or bought alcohol from a shop. If you have, you are supporting a powerful and very profitable industry that advertises and encourages consumption of a depresent that for many people fuels an addiction and can lead to serious health problems, and in extreme (but not rare) instances, death.JaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.
Or have you "responsibly" enjoyed a beer / wine like the vast majority of the population, whilst knowing that for some the product is an issue, and that the industry has an obligation (morally and legally) to manage the harm that its product can create.
4 -
Are you too embarrassed to say ?MrOneLung said:
Your post has actually made me laugh out loud. The fact is, it is morally fine to work in that industryJaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.Can I ask what line of business your work is?0 -
I’m not though am I? For one thing morals are a matter of opinion, but then I suppose your ‘removed from reality/out of your arse’ comment is as well. Not sure what your reputation has to do with anything, I wasn’t even directing my post at you. But no matter how many years you’ve profited from gambling or how much you ‘fucking know’, there’s no way you can convince me that gambling companies don’t like problem gamblers. There’s far too much evidence (and you may call it anecdotal) on this thread alone.bobmunro said:
You are talking from a position far removed from reality, or talking out of your arse - I’m not quite sure which but I have an idea.JaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.
I like to think I have a reasonable reputation on this forum and can assure you I speak the truth - and that’s from a position of actually fucking knowing.1 -
To be clear I don’t have an issue with the betting industry existing, I certainly wouldn’t get behind banning it, I enjoy a weekly accumulator myself.That doesn’t mean I don’t think the way the industry targets and abuses addicts, which I’ve seen first hand, is disgusting and should be stopped.
It might not happen where Bob works, but it certainly happens across the industry, it’s fine saying “we spend 5million a year finding problem gamblers” but does it matter if you ensure they lose 10m before closing the accounts?ElliotCAFC said:As an apprentice, one of my first tasks was to analyse any high-value “lapsed bettors” - in other words I needed to identify gambling addicts who had stopped gambling. They’re then targeted with personalised messages specific to what they used to bet on (specific horses, football teams, bet types) until they bet again and are no longer in the lapsed category. It’s someone’s job to do that every hour of every day in their working life - you wouldn’t believe the amount of money these messages generate.
2 -
Who was the post directed at then if it wasn't at Bob?JaShea99 said:
I’m not though am I? For one thing morals are a matter of opinion, but then I suppose your ‘removed from reality/out of your arse’ comment is as well. Not sure what your reputation has to do with anything, I wasn’t even directing my post at you. But no matter how many years you’ve profited from gambling or how much you ‘fucking know’, there’s no way you can convince me that gambling companies don’t like problem gamblers. There’s far too much evidence (and you may call it anecdotal) on this thread alone.bobmunro said:
You are talking from a position far removed from reality, or talking out of your arse - I’m not quite sure which but I have an idea.JaShea99 said:It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.
I like to think I have a reasonable reputation on this forum and can assure you I speak the truth - and that’s from a position of actually fucking knowing.1
