Get out your bank statement before buying that ticket
 

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...cks-on-bettors

England wants you to prove you can afford to bet

Don’t show this article to Biden

“ Arena Racing Company chief executive Martin Cruddace has estimated that affordability checks were the principal cause of a £280 million drop in digital betting turnover at the company's 16 courses last year compared to 2019, which he claimed would equate to £800 million across the sport as a whole and a £40 million hit to racing's finances.”

* hope I didn’t miss a thread on this somewhere in the past

There’s obviously an incredible amount of lost money involved. It sounds like the policies of “imposition of intrusive affordability and source-of-funds checks” is without a doubt an invasion of an individual’s privacy.

After reviewing the reports from the Betting and Gaming Council it appears that the British Gambling Commission missed the boat by not setting up their own black market ADW site. :D:D They could probably recover a lot of that lost revenue, especially if their site offered the things they’re so concerned about. In lieu of this, they should perhaps reconsider their counter-productive policies and fire the people who initiated them to begin with.

In any case, why would any of us betting from Stateside ADWs have any concerns about this topic:confused:

you could be a billionaire oil man from texas and you can't bet with an ADW in this country legally.

This is more nanny state type bullshit. Some people think we are all idiots, their values are superior, they always know what's best for us, and they have a right to impose their will on us. Worst of all, they feel this way despite often being among the most corrupt fools out there.

No one wants anyway to gamble over their heads and get themselves into financial or other trouble. But there are ways to encourage responsible gambling without invading privacy and imposing your will.

Could it be more obvious they were just going to drive people to black market bookmakers?

International wagering is a big industry, a ripple effect can come from anywhere.

In general, my position on these things is that we have the technology to do aggressive self-exclusion and we should do so. That's obviously not going to solve the problem of gambling addiction, but it will mitigate it somewhat-- people who have hit bottom and who put themselves on a list should be barred from gambling sites (internet and live). And if a site allows someone to gamble who is on the self-exclusion list should be subject to regulatory punishment.

As a British full-time professional horse-player I can confirm that this is a complete nightmare, and a real risk to livelihoods and the whole industry.

Betting accounts are closed, often without warning, and only reopened once sufficient bank statements and at least three months' proof of income are provided. Income has to come from employment, and savings or gambling winnings don't count - a nightmare for the pro-gambler! Any large transactions visible on these statements need to be accounted for with corresponding statements provided from any linked accounts, even in some cases the statements of friends or family. Who wants to ask their parents to share their bank statements with William Hill just because they gave you £1000 as a wedding present? :lol:

I only have a few key accounts left, and now totally avoid any deposit into these for fear of triggering a review. If these accounts go, my only option will be to move out of the country or go back into employment for three months so I can demonstrate enough income to get some accounts reopened. Absurd!

Great idea! I can see this idea spreading to food and alcohol too. All in the name of providing help. Just because technology exists doesn't mean it should be used.

Scary.
I'm giving 'beyond Entertainment' one last chance.
Plenty of time to stock watch-lists and work on mistakes, faults, weaknesses currently in my life.
I wouldn't pass a bank test right now, and I need 6-12 months off the books if things go well.
I agree with some of the ideas towards self-imposed and rock-bottom program-imposed black lists. Against acceleration of the already heavy nanny hand.

I don't know the answer to this, but intuitively I don't think that's going to help much.

How many people that have a legitimate problem are going to voluntarily put themselves on a list like that?

Even if you said something like "once you are self aware enough of the problem to attend GA you are excluded" you might actually incentivize a few people to not attend GA because they don't really want to stop completely even though they are in trouble and know they need help.

This is similar to a Facebook meme I saw a few days ago that said:

"Why is it that after a shooting they always want to take away the guns of people who don't do the shooting?"

Brilliant!

When I played a lot of online poker before 2011, PokerStars and Full Tilt had large self-exclusion lists and, as far as I know, enforced them aggressively. You'd be surprised how many people are willing to do this-- indeed, it's encouraged by problem gambler support groups.