General Chat

[Quevega]

I actually feel like the whole affordability checks thing has become like the fucking pronouns thing in other areas of society. Racing Post are full of shit.
In regard that it's not the real issue.

The main threat to punters and therefore the sport is the bookmakers themselves, who are everywhere within the industry and have their fingers up more bums than Jimmy Saville. Possibly why there are more homosexuals in racing these days - Nothing wrong with that by the way.

The way they fish out threats to their profits is arbitrary and too many ordinary punters get caught up in the many traps and nets, and subsequently more and more punters become disenfranchised. Affordability checks is simply another tool they will and have already utilised and abuse to do more of the same. We are basically like dolphins and baby seals.

The Bookmakers should have more regulations attached to what they themselves can afford to "lose and win". Basically they should be made to lay bets at a certain level - reverse the affordability on to them. And they should also be made to utilise the tools they already have towards rooting out the genuinely at risk punters whose habits clearly show harmful behaviour and spend less time on rooting out short term winners or "potential winners".

Even if this decreases competition and gets rid of many of the fly by night tin pot bookies that crop up on line, then so fuck. At least more of those that want and can afford to play will be able to.

[Istabraq]

I actually feel like the whole affordability checks thing has become like the fucking pronouns thing in other areas of society. Racing Post are full of shit.
In regard that it's not the real issue.

The main threat to punters and therefore the sport is the bookmakers themselves, who are everywhere within the industry and have their fingers up more bums than Jimmy Saville. Possibly why there are more homosexuals in racing these days - Nothing wrong with that by the way.

The way they fish out threats to their profits is arbitrary and too many ordinary punters get caught up in the many traps and nets, and subsequently more and more punters become disenfranchised. Affordability checks is simply another tool they will and have already utilised and abuse to do more of the same. We are basically like dolphins and baby seals.

The Bookmakers should have more regulations attached to what they themselves can afford to "lose and win". Basically they should be made to lay bets at a certain level - reverse the affordability on to them. And they should also be made to utilise the tools they already have towards rooting out the genuinely at risk punters whose habits clearly show harmful behaviour and spend less time on rooting out short term winners or "potential winners".

Even if this decreases competition and gets rid of many of the fly by night tin pot bookies that crop up on line, then so fuck. At least more of those that want and can afford to play will be able to.

Yep, so true.
It's a view (not the homosexual bit) that's been banded around recently and is accepted by just about everyone involved in the sport but nothing changes, bookmakers welcome affordability checks because it paints them as being considerate and responsible whilst being able to weed out every duplicate account that only exists because they've been allowed to make up their own rules and get away with it for so long.
I have a Son in Australia, he punts and has a circle of friends who punt, they know exactly zero people who have been restricted/closed so the approach is very specific to the UK which pretty much confirms the licensing requirements differ between the two regulators.

I know this is an open forum, we want everyone to gamble safely etc and this will be seen as an irresponsible admission but I now place somewhere between 80% and 90% of my bets with an unregulated provider, I don't want to but bar running to shops it's the only way I can get a bet on.
I doubt I'm the only one in here either...

[Odin]

The Bookmakers should have more regulations attached to what they themselves can afford to "lose and win". Basically they should be made to lay bets at a certain level - reverse the affordability on to them. And they should also be made to utilise the tools they already have towards rooting out the genuinely at risk punters whose habits clearly show harmful behaviour and spend less time on rooting out short term winners or "potential winners".

For me, this is the key point. I know it would cause issues for some people here, which I wouldn't be looking to do, but even being able to win 1k per race per person (at the time of the bet, which would hurt someone like me who is used to BOG but is a very fair compromise) for example should be a requirement of being a bookmaker. I'm sure there is a situation like that in Aus as Istabraq refers to with noone being restricted. It's really frustrating. I can only hope for someone like me that the current affordability checks are moved upwards. I've never had a bet of more than 25 for any race (and generally don't bet more than a tenner), yet I stand to be restricted by the current affordability suggestions if I have one bad week then don't bet for a couple of weeks. I've then got mates who will spend 150 money that they literally don't have on a night out but that's all fine. It's ridiculous.

[HesTheOne]

See the tweet this from Geoff Banks of a sky bet customer requested to provide photo ID of 10 separate people who sent money on his back statement and the reasoning why.

[Istabraq]

See the tweet this from Geoff Banks of a sky bet customer requested to provide photo ID of 10 separate people who sent money on his back statement and the reasoning why.

Sorry, have I got this right ?
A Sky customer was asked to provide bank statements, which they did, and Skybet analysed that bank statement detailing personal purchases etc and have subsequently asked the customer to provide ID verification for people that appear on his/her statement ?
That really is insane, I mean it's just mindblowing.
Why would anyone agree to provide bank statements ?
There isn't another country in world where a business would be allowed to get away with that....

[HoldenTheReins]

Sorry, have I got this right ?
A Sky customer was asked to provide bank statements, which they did, and Skybet analysed that bank statement detailing personal purchases etc and have subsequently asked the customer to provide ID verification for people that appear on his/her statement ?
That really is insane, I mean it's just mindblowing.
Why would anyone agree to provide bank statements ?
There isn't another country in world where a business would be allowed to get away with that....

It's fucking madness is what it is. What's the alternative? Take them to court?

[Runragged]

Yep, so true.
It's a view (not the homosexual bit) that's been banded around recently and is accepted by just about everyone involved in the sport but nothing changes, bookmakers welcome affordability checks because it paints them as being considerate and responsible whilst being able to weed out every duplicate account that only exists because they've been allowed to make up their own rules and get away with it for so long.
I have a Son in Australia, he punts and has a circle of friends who punt, they know exactly zero people who have been restricted/closed so the approach is very specific to the UK which pretty much confirms the licensing requirements differ between the two regulators.

I know this is an open forum, we want everyone to gamble safely etc and this will be seen as an irresponsible admission but I now place somewhere between 80% and 90% of my bets with an unregulated provider, I don't want to but bar running to shops it's the only way I can get a bet on.
I doubt I'm the only one in here either...

Fully agree on a lot of what has been said regarding affordability, though there definitely needs to be more done to differentiate between games of skill and games of luck. You can't band all gamblers together and treat them the same. Slot machine games are designed to be addictive by nature whereas gambling on sport is very much less so and gives the person betting, control over their selections.

Restrictions on accounts on the basis of profitability or 'beating the price' is a joke. I am a modest stakes punter but even then I have one account where the most I can win is ?5. I can't bet more than ?1 on a 5/1 chance. What's the point? If I am beating the price then they could learn more from me by taking my ?5/?10 then by me not even placing a bet with them. Yet they could happily take ?20 from a completely different customer on the same horse at the same price... Where's the logic?

However, I do see it from the betting companies side when it comes to affordability because the fines are not proportional to the 'crime'. Simplifying this but someone could lose ?50,000, report to the commission saying nothing was done to help them and the company will get fined millions of pounds along with the bad publicity that follows. It is easier for them to take a 'one size fits all' approach especially when there are very few set figures in place to determine how much is 'too much'. The problem with this is a director of a multi million pound company will get treated the same as someone on jobseekers allowance. But without asking questions the company won't know. Like I say, if a betting company gets it wrong then it is extremely costly as a business to them so you can see why companies are so careful now with there also the threat of losing their license. But you can see how out of touch the government is with the industry with their proposal in the white paper of 'soft checks' when the technology doesn't even exist to conduct such tests.

As to betting with unregulated companies, I would be one who would pack it in altogether rather than give my bank details and bet with a company who can renege on a bet at anytime or run off with my money, whilst also knowing that the bets I place are not doing anything to help the industry I am betting on.

[Istabraq]

Fully agree on a lot of what has been said regarding affordability, though there definitely needs to be more done to differentiate between games of skill and games of luck. You can't band all gamblers together and treat them the same. Slot machine games are designed to be addictive by nature whereas gambling on sport is very much less so and gives the person betting, control over their selections.

As to betting with unregulated companies, I would be one who would pack it in altogether rather than give my bank details and bet with a company who can renege on a bet at anytime or run off with my money, whilst also knowing that the bets I place are not doing anything to help the industry I am betting on.

Point one agreed, and has been debated by everyone in the industry but the underlying point is that the introduction of affordability checks for whatever reason at their own discretion allows bookmakers to abuse them and use them for alternative gain.
I've lost accounts on the basis I've refused to personal banking data but these were winning accounts, so if an account isn't losing money how does an affordability check make any sense ?

Point 2, there is no exchange of bank info, settlement is cash

[Atlantic Viking]

Weird ride on Kateira

[Lobos]

Weird ride on Kateira

Hated the going.

Winner is very good.

Luccia won't stay 2 1/2.

[opatcho]

Kateria drifted right before the off, and Dans comments about the going didnt fill me with any confidence. One to keep on side later in the season
Luccia likley to go over flats now

Good run for You Wear It Well, likely to be best out of the GB lot come March - I know some will say Love Envoi :-) but she needs to come back

Lets see what the Irish have... (and they have few!!!)

[Lobos]

Agreed Opatcho.

We all know though that Love Envoi would murder those today at her best.

[Carnage at Taunton]

Hated the going.

Winner is very good.

Luccia won't stay 2 1/2.

Imo wait and see her on better ground over 2 1/2 before being too dogmatic
Every time I see her on good ground she looks to
me like she would stay further

[Spectre]

Weird ride on Kateira

Needed the race and was very much looked after AV.

[opatcho]

I'd rather side with Kateira next time out on better ground over Luccia