- This topic has 38 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Just seen a woman in my local Co-op store spend about £50 on National Lottery lucky dips.
Maybe she was paying for more people than just herself. But the ridiculous gambling legislation does not appear to take this situation into account, i.e people throwing money away on a game of chance offering terrible odds. Whereas punters on sporting events where a bit of knowledge can be used are potentially going to be penalised.
What an absolute joke.
Granpa Simpson doing a gingertipster after the event…😂😂
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Disgraceful comment, Nathan, I’m definitely not laughing out loud at that.
“Many a true word, spoken in….”
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"When Citibet downgraded Britain from a major to a minor racing country last year, it was not only a huge dent to national pride, but pretty much marked the beginning of the end.
The ghouls saw their chance to stick a fork in it.
Nowhere left to run to when the “Papers Please!” mob get you in their vice-like grip……………
The harsh, but simple, reality is that if you are a long-term losing punter you have no issues in being able to operate.
But if you are a long-term winning punter every possible obstacle will be put in your way.
And no one speaks for you because no one at the BHA or in the racing media really CARES.
Not really, deep down, because you’re not a net contributor to the Levy.
This won’t ever change.
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"Interesting, thanks Mike.
I’m not surprised to hear that people are turning to black market operators but you’re gambling twice with them.
I may not agree with restricting people or attempting to invade their privacy but it all comes back to the fact that you can’t compel the firms to do business with anyone and I don’t see how you change that.
The whole affordability carry on came about through the Gambling Commission (who raised the possibility) trying to kid people into thinking they were doing their job. I had dealings with them and their officers 15 years ago – nice people, but running scared of the big bookies. The commission has been an abject failure at every point.
The whole thing is an absolute fallacy created by people who don’t have the first idea about the mentality of punters.
I work for a small bookies and say we have a customer who loses £10k a year. Even if he plays ball and complies with all the intrusive documents requests and a decision is made that he can’t afford £10k a year and we limit him to £5k, do the people who thought up this bullshit really think he’s just going to pack it all in when he reaches his affordability limit and not have another punt for the rest of the year?
No, he’s going to go straight to one of our competitors and lose it there instead.
It’s a total farce invented by a load of do-gooders who, while I’m sure it is well intentioned (maybe), don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
A demonstration of the confusion is the fact that picture in that article is of rails bookies on course – which is the one place where this problem doesn’t exist.
I only attended a dozen meetings during the flat season this year, but placed bets of up to £600 with no questions asked, and I never had any issues with getting a bet accepted either.
The rails books seldom have any of the offers that the online ones do such as best odds guaranteed, price matching, enhanced place terms etc. All of these offers eat into the profit margin and have to be paid for somehow and kicking out winning punters is a good place to start.
They don’t appear to be conducting ‘affordability checks’ on the rails so I don’t know how they get around that. Are they even a requirement or are the big firms just using it as an excuse to restrict people?
There are a host of betting shops in most town centres
you could burn £500 be told that’s enough and just move into the next shopGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
The newest account I’ve opened, with SBK, only required me to make a profit of £140 before limiting me to peanuts :(
The article quotes Betfair customers. Betfair do not care if you are a winning punter or not? Perhaps I am wrong about that.
In yesterday’s article they mentioned that betting shop customers were also asked for the same information, so you could not just move on to another shop as Nathen envisions.
“The article quotes Betfair customers. Betfair do not care if you are a winning punter or not? Perhaps I am wrong about that.”
Betfair are owned by Flutter – who also own Paddypower. Betfair have both an exchange and a sportsbook so I’d assume the article is referring to the sportsbook with regards to limiting punters, though they may still carry out the affordability checks with their exchange. This is just what I’m assuming though so others will probably know more than myself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.