- This topic has 11 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Can anyone cut and paste this article from the Racing Poor today please ?
I have a “friend” who has had a betfair account for nigh on 20 years and it has been frozen since the weekend before Cheltenham with 7K in the account. They have demanded impossible personal details and not responded to any other correspondence…………
Years ago betfair suspended my account until I proved who I was
think it was something like proof of address and passport/driving stuff
I can’t see them doing it for affordability checks.
If so the exchanges will go a bit t!ts upCharles Darwin to conquer the World
Forgive me Father, for I have been busy (betting) but here it is…
And it is rather long and monotonous, so will take a few cut and pastes…Punters are reporting increasing difficulties with affordability checks, intrusive and stringent in some cases, despite the fact the results of a Gambling Commission consultation on the subject have not yet been made public.
The imposition of checks by various operators has already resulted in closed accounts and widespread frustration that is likely to undermine interest in racing and the financial support it receives from bookmakers.
The Horseracing Bettors Forum said on Thursday it had been contacted by three punters recently because of checks requested by the Tote, where a low-level trigger of £750 in total deposits appears to have been introduced.
The Racing Post has also heard from a punter who reports checks being made by a range of companies, while one betting industry insider has described the potentially calamitous effect on the business for which he works, and by extension for racing.
The news comes after the end of the betting regulator’s affordability review last month. Among the possibilities raised in the consultation was the prospect of the introduction of a threshold on net gambling loss of as little as £100, which would lead to customers having to provide evidence they could afford to lose more.
The consultation received around 13,000 submissions amid deep concern about the intrusion on privacy and the likely impact on sports like racing which derive significant income from betting companies. An owners group recently named the issue as “the number one thing racing has to deal with effectively”.David Carr
“We understand that the Tote have set a limit to say, once you get to £750 total deposits on your account, you’re going to undergo some sort of affordability check,” said Colin Hord, HBF chairman. It is believed a figure around £300 is applied for those under the age of 25.The Racing Post has seen an emailed request from the Tote to one of those customers, seeking details of gross annual income, net monthly income and normal monthly outgoings. It also asks whether the customer would consider deposit limits “to manage your spend”.
The email states: “We apply a £750 deposit limit to all customer accounts before needing to ask for additional verification … We are determined to make gambling not only fun but also affordable for all our customers”.
“We haven’t heard from anyone who’s filled that in,” Hord continued. “One person has refused and said they would rather bet on the black market than provide that information. The other person wrote, ‘Private, private, not going to tell you’, and we haven’t heard what happened as a result. The other guy has only just received it and he’s considering how to approach it.”
Susannah Gill, the Tote’s communications director, responded: “Our priority is to provide a safe and enjoyable betting experience for our customers. As part of this, we collect some personal information from individuals to help ensure they are betting safely and affordably throughout their time as customers of the Tote.
“This may make some people uncomfortable but is part of an established regulatory environment for the gambling sector, where it is important we know our customers, to support both our legal and social responsibilities.”
Susannah Gill: “Important we know our customers, to support both our legal and social responsibilities”
Susannah Gill: “Important we know our customers, to support both our legal and social responsibilities”
The owners of Ladbrokes Coral acknowledged that checks are in place, but would be triggered only where risk was identified and not applied to all customers.A spokesman for Entain said: “As part of our Advanced Responsibility and Care ARC programme, and as announced in November, we have implemented additional checks on customers who may be at risk of potential harm. These checks operate on a personalised risk-based approach rather than blanket restrictions which would be detrimental to the wider betting and gaming ecosystem, including the horseracing industry.”
One punter approached by the Racing Post, who asked to remain anonymous, said he holds accounts with a dozen firms, half of which have sought some kind of affordability check in the past six months, varying wildly in vigour.
“Some pay it lip service – ‘We just need to check you’re happy with the amount you’re spending’ – and you just say, yes, and that’s the end of it.
“At the other end of the scale, with one firm it was almost like a tax investigation. I had one of their guys ringing me for half an hour and he literally grilled me, it was like MI5. ‘We checked, in one specific hour in the past month, you placed 15 bets. Why did you do that? How do you manage to find the time for this, with your work?’.
“It was a strange scenario. I was caught a bit off guard. Thinking about it afterwards, I should have said, ‘Get lost, I’m not having this conversation. If you want to shut my account, just shut it. But I’m doing a perfectly legal activity, so why are you asking me all these questions?’.
“But at the time I thought if I went along with it, I’d get rid of him quicker and be able to carry on doing what I was doing. But then they said, we’re setting a monthly deposit limit.”
‘Where’s the future of their business?’
The punter, a fan of racing, expressed concern about the impact such checks will have on the sport’s share of bookmaker profits. “I do know people who have just said, ‘I’m not going through this rigmarole’. And it is a time-consuming rigmarole. It’s not just the privacy issue. It can take weeks doing this stuff, going back and forth.
“From the bookmaker’s side, if they’re having to shut down losing accounts and restrict everyone to losing £100 a month, where’s the future of their business? At the moment, you get shut down if you win because they don’t want your business and you’re shut down if you lose because the Gambling Commission says the bookies are not entitled to this business.”
That chimed with the thoughts of a betting industry insider, who also asked to remain anonymous. He said the firm that employs him has lost three-quarters of its biggest 100 racing punters since last year’s Cheltenham Festival as a direct consequence of checks aimed at establishing what they can afford to lose, either because they chose to close their accounts or because they were closed for non-response.
The insider added that punters in 2021 are an oppressed minority. “Nobody understands you, everybody thinks you’re curable and everyone thinks there’s something wrong with you and you should be controlled. A punter in 2021 is starting to feel like a lesser member of society.”
He said that Gambling Commission action behind the scenes, including criticism of operators during formal inspections, had helped bring affordability checks into force “even without the whole affordability thing having come anywhere near any kind of statute”.
The commission said it would not speak on the subject until it responds to its consultation.
Hord set out the HBF’s position: “The vast majority who do not bet very large amounts of money and have a proven record of betting on horse racing responsibly should not have to undergo intrusive checks.”
Thank you Sam.
As if right on cue the same “friend” tried to put a £500 bet on a 9/2 at Newbury today with another bookie (not associated with Betfair) and got offered £6.16, first ever knock back from that company….. They are predictably not amused.
Absolutely appalling if it happens and that will be the end of any (legal) betting for me.
Only two people on this planet know my financial details – one is me the other my accountant and that’s the way it will stay.
It will drive serious betting underground
Back to the shed in the pub car park like the good old days!
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysBack to the shed in the pub car park like the good old days!
It used to be the milkman round our way lol
Old Jack Gray took bets in the local pub. I’d make the selections and Dad would take them round, and of course he’d have a pint while he was there!
I bet from a separate bank account. Money is set aside for betting at the start of the year and if I’m successful then it’s self sustaining because I save any profit and carry the bank over. If they ask for any significant banking details then they can shove it and I’ll find other things to do.
If I was running racing I’d be taking a battering ram to the government door over this one.
“Oppressed minority” indeed. This strikes me as being an attempt to stamp out a leisure activity that some people disapprove of (or bankrupt the organisations that provide people with the opportunity to bet) wrapped up in the “we must protect the most vulnerable in society” spiel.
I’ve only recently joined the forum but have been a long time “lurker” and I can say that almost without exception the regular posters on here couldn’t possibly be described as “vulnerable” and seem to be well educated, literate and rational yet these are the people that will be affected by this unwelcome and unwarranted interference.
Meanwhile should we expect people buying scratch cards or playing Bingo or the obscene Euro Millions and other “games” where the outcome is based solely on chance and no amount of analysis or research can assist you in winning to be subject to similar scrutiny. Or moving further afield will we see the people that buy new clothes every week or upgrade to a new phone when there’s nothing wrong with their “old” one having to demonstrate that they can afford to toss this money away.
Some people are problem gamblers that’s not in doubt and I don’t have the answer to how best to help them but this isn’t it (and I honestly don’t believe there is much intention to help those people, it’s much more about “this on line betting is terrible isn’t it, we must put a stop to it”.)
Picture the scene, the main betting ring at the 2022 Cheltenham Festival.
“What price are you about Jonbon?”
“To you sir, 6/4.”
“I’ll have £90,000 to £60,000.”
“Certainly Mr McManus, but are you sure you can afford that?”
I think bookies have brought this upon themselves to an extent. They have resisted any sort of curbs in order to keep the golden goose that is casino games alive. Had they accepted some light restrictions, we may not have been in this position.
As always the other problem is public perception. You aren’t going to get much sympathy from most people when you are betting hundreds or even thousands of pounds on a horse, however carefully considered that bet might be. These are sums of money that represent a week or month’s wages to most people. Many will also see little difference between that and chucking it at a roulette wheel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.