- This topic has 63 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
It might be worse than some thought….
brief descriptions of those behind the idea:
not much evidence there of any experience or understanding of horserace betting.
Interesting article by Greg Wood on this: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/feb/03/talking-horses-dire-warnings-issued-over-affordability-checks-for-punters
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"The £100 limit is clearly ridiculous and would be hugely damaging to racing if introduced.
The problem racing has (and no one likes to talk about it) is it depends on losing punters for much of its funding. I always have a wry smile whenever I read the introduction to a racecard when the Chairman “wishes you a profitable days racing”. If he was being honest he would wish you a losing day.
In the era of social media dominated by loud, new puritan voices, it is difficult to find a suitable form of words defending gambling losses that would satisfy the permanently outraged.
However, I have a feeling wiser counsels will prevail. The Treasury knows the terrible state of the public finances. It will want to get its hands on every penny of tax and duty it can get. Ruining the horse racing and betting industries would not be a good idea.
You can have your 2p worth if you respond to the gambling commissions survey which closes in a week or so:
https://consult.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/author/participation-and-prevalence/consultation/intro/
While I get where they are coming from, the limitss being badied about in the press are ridiculous (and possibly being pitched at a level where we will eventually think, “oh £500 isnt too bad then”.
Casinos are required to investigate customers for proof of income when their losses exceed £20,000 pa. I am only aware of this as an occasional poker player. The result of this ruling before lock-down saw a reduction in footfall and turnover, according to casino staff I know well, as all the dodgy money went elsewhere.
While the casino limits drove away customers whose funds came from illegal pursuits, it also affected genuinely well-heeled players who had ample legal resources and resented the intrusion.
I have responded to the survey to say that the commission should seek to avoid a worse situation with online betting. Setting the loss-limits too low for sports betting – note, excluding online slots and other such nonsense – would be bad for the industry and the betting public.
I am happy for them to regulate all they like on online slots and other nonsense they have developed for betting junkies, but if I want to put £200 on a horse, I dont expect to have to deliver up bank statements and payslips.
The horror stories about bank managers and the like embezzling money for online gambling addictions should be captured early with a much higher loss threshold than is being promoted right now.
An affordability check will undoubtedly result in betting companies TARGETING customers with a high net worth or high disposable income. We have seen how they groom fraudulent punters and encourage excessive gambling. There is no way I would reveal my financial details to a bookmaker, any more than I would tell Sainsbury’s or my local car dealer how I can afford my purchases.
I’m opposed to the whole idea. You don’t see tobacco and alcohol companies checking to see how much people are smoking and drinking to see if there is a problem. Its up to individuals to take responsibility for their own actions in this world imo and seek help if they feel they need it.
- Total Posts 2553
Mike, the difference seems to be that this is more about trying to stop money laundering.
- Total Posts 2553
same as when the restrictions came in on the FOBTs. An awful lot of dirty money was cleaned up in them, and with a receipt to prove.
- Total Posts 2553
I could well be on my own with the above reasoning, mind.
No I listened to MP Carolyn Harris on the Racing Debate the other and she seems to want to concentrate the restrictions on the on-line casino type games.
- Total Posts 2553
I’ve not looked at any of the above links but would be surprised if the proposed gambling restrictions have not given any thought to the problem of money laundering
Suprisingly seen positivity about using betfair exchanges in this thread, without realising that the exchanges will cease to exist if this £100 limit is in place. There will be zero liquidity in any market. You need big money to be able to lay sports especially horses and that simply won’t be able to happen under these new rules
- Total Posts 2553
There’s no way that the two-time winner of the Queen’s Award for Enterprise will fold, believe me.
Surely there can’t be a cut off though. If £100 per week, I could win a grand two weeks before Cheltenham but then have a bad first day at Cheltenham and not be able to back again for the rest of the week
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.