Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 01-25-2023, 05:15 PM   #1
JustRalph
Just another Facist
 
JustRalph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,619
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
__________________
WE ARE THE DUMBEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!

Last edited by JustRalph; 01-25-2023 at 05:17 PM.
JustRalph is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-25-2023, 06:22 PM   #2
Nitro
Registered User
 
Nitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 18,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph View Post
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...cks-on-bettors

England wants you to prove you can afford to bet
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. 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
Nitro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-25-2023, 06:27 PM   #3
lamboguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 23,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
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. 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
you could be a billionaire oil man from texas and you can't bet with an ADW in this country legally.
lamboguy is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-26-2023, 10:28 AM   #4
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
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?
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-26-2023, 01:26 PM   #5
Someday Silent
Registered User
 
Someday Silent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South of heaven
Posts: 384
International wagering is a big industry, a ripple effect can come from anywhere.
Someday Silent is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-26-2023, 01:44 PM   #6
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
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.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-26-2023, 03:43 PM   #7
jameegray1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 251
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?

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!
jameegray1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-26-2023, 05:01 PM   #8
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
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.

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.
__________________
Best writing advice ever received: Never use a long word when a diminutive one will suffice.
AndyC is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-26-2023, 06:26 PM   #9
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,513
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.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-26-2023, 07:16 PM   #10
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 01-26-2023 at 07:23 PM.
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-26-2023, 09:01 PM   #11
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
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.
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?"
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-26-2023, 10:08 PM   #12
JustRalph
Just another Facist
 
JustRalph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
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!
__________________
WE ARE THE DUMBEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!
JustRalph is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-27-2023, 11:44 AM   #13
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
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.
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.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.