Think they're happy with housewife/accumulator style bets but anyone picking off best prices or winning reasonable amounts of money are restricted immediately ...
If you ask a regular punter if they thought they are "up", "down" or "about level" on all the bets they've ever placed then you'd be amazed how many of them said "up" or "about level".
And yet the bookies, betting companies and casinos make billions each year.
There must be one bloke somewhere losing an absolute fortune every day.
Betting off-course I am down over the years, betting on-course I am substantially up. Most punters will lose - and most punters realise that.
Betting for the vast majority of people is a harmless bit of fun that can add to the excitement of live sport - it is seen as an expense in the same way drinking is an expense, but both give enjoyment (when consumed in moderation).
There are some, a small minority, who have problems with moderating their alcohol intake and there are an even smaller minority who have a problem with moderating their gambling. For those in the latter group operators are constantly looking at ways of identifying that behaviour and taking positive action with the customer to reduce/remove the risk. As someone else said earlier, it is not in the operator's interest to have customers with gambling problems - neither is it their intention, despite what some may think.
However, in the context of this thread, gambling opportunities should not intentionally be promoted to under 18s and not a single operator I know (and I know them all!) does that. Moreover, the risks associated with gambling should be part of broader financial awareness education provided to under 18s, along with pensions, investments and budgeting.
Just one final comment from me - we have a very popular 'Savings and Investments Thread' that talks about unit trusts, investment funds and share tips - even the mad speculative world of bitcoins. But hey, it's just the evil bookmaker that comes in for the stick! But that's fine, next July I will celebrate being in the game for forty years - so I'm used to it!
Think they're happy with housewife/accumulator style bets but anyone picking off best prices or winning reasonable amounts of money are restricted immediately ...
On radio five today they said that the betting companies make a huge percentage of their profits from just a tiny percentage of punters.
Can't recall the exact numbers but it seems there are a few people who spend/lose a lot
This thread reminded me to put a bet on! I put a fiver on Arsenal, Southampton and Burnley for today. Only win £60.72 if they come off but makes the games mildly more entertaining.
Think they're happy with housewife/accumulator style bets but anyone picking off best prices or winning reasonable amounts of money are restricted immediately ...
On radio five today they said that the betting companies make a huge percentage of their profits from just a tiny percentage of punters.
Can't recall the exact numbers but it seems there are a few people who spend/lose a lot
Yep , losers welcome and if you dare win regularly decent amounts .... you’re out the door , only losers welcome
Actually the Czech Republic is a good case study in how an ad ban works. When I arrived here in 1993 more than 50% of Czechs smoked. Now to be fair, you might point out that advertising under the Communist regimes for Western brands was banned. But they picked it up from films. Smoking was cool, Western cool. A packet of Marlboro was like a gold bar, along with a pair of Levis. In 1993, Philip Morris and the others were on the retreat in the West, and they made the most while they could of their freedom here. Despite not being on TV, Philip Morris was one of the biggest advertisers. Then the drive towards EU accession took off and their freedoms to advertise were progressively curtailed; although the bans in pubs etc only came much later. By 2015, only 25% of Czechs smoked, and most were older, and smoked heavily, including many politicians. If the ad ban didnt play a role, what did? Czech public service advertising has always been pathetic ( how I tried and failed to change that) and there was hardly any ad campaign against smoking. Pubs were slow to cater for even non-smoking spaces. Yet young people turned their back on smoking in huge numbers. It was no longer cool. The messages of cool had been silenced.
So an ad ban would work to some extent, I am sure. It would probably drastically cut the number of new entrants to the market. It still shocks me to watch a televised English game and see how, based on the ads, football and gambling go hand in hand. Young people have absorbed that, from the moment they started watching footie on TV.
That said, there are differences between tobacco and gambling as products, and the companies involved. I’m arguing an ad ban would be effective. I am not arguing that a total ban is justified.
Well actually, there is one reason to ban gambling advertising. Most of it is, from a professional POV, utter shite. It makes Lidl look like the last word in sophistication. All involved should be stuck in special prison cells with giant Tv screens and soundbars and subjected to their own execrable output for hours on end.
Actually the Czech Republic is a good case study in how an ad ban works. When I arrived here in 1993 more than 50% of Czechs smoked. Now to be fair, you might point out that advertising under the Communist regimes for Western brands was banned. But they picked it up from films. Smoking was cool, Western cool. A packet of Marlboro was like a gold bar, along with a pair of Levis. In 1993, Philip Morris and the others were on the retreat in the West, and they made the most while they could of their freedom here. Despite not being on TV, Philip Morris was one of the biggest advertisers. Then the drive towards EU accession took off and their freedoms to advertise were progressively curtailed; although the bans in pubs etc only came much later. By 2015, only 25% of Czechs smoked, and most were older, and smoked heavily, including many politicians. If the ad ban didnt play a role, what did? Czech public service advertising has always been pathetic ( how I tried and failed to change that) and there was hardly any ad campaign against smoking. Pubs were slow to cater for even non-smoking spaces. Yet young people turned their back on smoking in huge numbers. It was no longer cool. The messages of cool had been silenced.
So an ad ban would work to some extent, I am sure. It would probably drastically cut the number of new entrants to the market. It still shocks me to watch a televised English game and see how, based on the ads, football and gambling go hand in hand. Young people have absorbed that, from the moment they started watching footie on TV.
That said, there are differences between tobacco and gambling as products, and the companies involved. I’m arguing an ad ban would be effective. I am not arguing that a total ban is justified.
Well actually, there is one reason to ban gambling advertising. Most of it is, from a professional POV, utter shite. It makes Lidl look like the last word in sophistication. All involved should be stuck in special prison cells with giant Tv screens and soundbars and subjected to their own execrable output for hours on end.
Sir
So the purpose, in your opinion, of an ad ban would be to drastically reduce the number of new entrants to the market rather than to protect minors? You would presumably prefer that the gambling industry therefore withers on the vine? An assumption presumably based on the premise that gambling is intrinsically bad? That individuals are are not equipped to make their own judgements on how to spend their money? I smell bovine excrement.
Gambling is probably the oldest profession - I'm sure bets were laid on whether she would or wouldn't. The prevalence of problem gambling in the UK is 0.5% of those that gamble, and this figure has stayed pretty much unchanged in the past 20 years - source the Gambling Commissions own prevalence survey with the latest published in February this year. People who do not understand gambling, the mechanics, psychology and motivations are trying to solve a problem that hardly exists. Protect the vulnerable yes, but let the 99.5% of gamblers who don't have a problem carry on with what they enjoy doing.
I also smell a hint of hypocrisy, Richard. You are one of the major contributors to the savings and investment thread, how much your investments have grown or reduced, encouraging a bit of fun (because that's what gambling is to the overwhelming majority) with the FTSE prediction competition. The biggest bookies in the country is the floor of the LSE (a euphemism of course as it's all done digitally now), followed by Lloyds of London. Something in the city with a rolled umbrella and bowler hat has always been seen as respectable - but those horrible, evil bookmakers in their checked suits and cheap aftershave should be hounded to hell in a handcart. Absolute bollocks.
One final point - if the gambling industry advertising is so 'utter shite', from your professional opinion, then surely little effect will be seen by banning such ineffective marketing.
Is there anyone out there who has a betting account and is a regular winner or up with the same company that isn’t betfair ?
I bet on horse racing. All of my accounts are restricted except Skybet and I'm in profit with them over the past 5 years, though I don't get BOG or any other offers. All the other accounts, over 20 in number, have been restricted, some within a couple of days, and not all were in profit. They obviously don't like the way I bet and I'm sure Bob could explain this and try to justify it, but in reality it boils down to the bookmakers maxim 'thou shalt not win'. Their advertising is misleading and deceitful. I hate the modern bookmaking industry with a passion and would dearly love to see them all closed down.
Like any transaction, the customer wishes to have the best value, and the best range of choice and options available. The majority of the gambling adverts are , I believe trying to advertise those options and value. I have about 12 betting accounts, and advertising would, and does draw me to one or an other depending on, their offers.
Banning advertising would not bother me, just mean I have to find other ways of seeking out the offers. However, do not believe that Advertising, encourages gambling. Anymore than. Magnum advert, makes me rush out for ice cream.
Ralph, you don't think advertising encourages gambling, yet you admit advertising draws you in and you have twelve betting accounts?
Yes, and iv gambled for over 45 years, retired at 60, have a nice life and money in the bank. I enjoy a bet, I enjoy a pint, I like a kebab and indulge in other bad habits, but am in control of them all. I smoked up to the age of 30 and then gave up. The advertising only draws me to have a bet with one company over another. I would be having the bet regardless of Advertising. But an advert can draw me to one company over another, for any particular bet.
I don’t think the smoking comparison is a fair one. Smoking is basically bad for everyone. Gambling is bad for those who have a lack of control.
An anyone who has a single account, and uses that for all their gambling, is not a very shrewd player. That’s like buying all your groceries at the corner shop, convenient, but very unlikely to be good value
Think you saw the red mist a bit there Bob, which I could understand as the lone rep of the industry on this thread, but maybe I didnt properly explain my conclusion : an ad ban on gambling would reduce the total number of new gamblers. As an advertising pro, and particularly with reference to tobacco, I am convinced of that. Just a technical point about advertising. But I also said that I am not arguing a total ban ( on advertising) is justified. I accept some of the arguments that you make. Gambling is not tobacco, which will definitely make you seriously ill if you use the product in line with the manufacturer’s “instructions”.
The answer to your challenge to my comment about the shiteness of advertisng for gambling is that with the exčeption of Paddy Power, they are uniformly shite, so they cancel each other out. Compare the average gambling TV spot at half time to the average beer spot. Same broad target audience isn’t it?
i was very interested in your remark, if I understood it well, that the UK gambling market is in some decline. If so, what does the industry put the decline down to?
Is there anyone out there who has a betting account and is a regular winner or up with the same company that isn’t betfair ?
I bet on horse racing. All of my accounts are restricted except Skybet and I'm in profit with them over the past 5 years, though I don't get BOG or any other offers. All the other accounts, over 20 in number, have been restricted, some within a couple of days, and not all were in profit. They obviously don't like the way I bet and I'm sure Bob could explain this and try to justify it, but in reality it boils down to the bookmakers maxim 'thou shalt not win'. Their advertising is misleading and deceitful. I hate the modern bookmaking industry with a passion and would dearly love to see them all closed down.
Yep, restricted by them all as well and I’m pretty sure I was a loser with at least half of them and when I called the Racing Post years back about how pathetic it all was and you couldn’t get a proper bet on with the restrictions the fella I spoke with sympathised but said it ‘twas ever thus and it wasn’t worth a story .
My take, education will have a greater impact than a ban. I'm not that convinced the advertising on cigarettes had a major impact, more society's change of view and the greater medical knowledge. You only need to look at 'youngsters' now and how many take good care of their health, the Gym, fitness classes, cycling, running etc etc. Have sales gone down since they aren't on open display in the shops? I don't know but doubt it.
I'd like to see much much greater financial education in schools, compulsory part of the curriculum right up to year 11. Of course pensions, savings, debt management, good debt bad debt etc etc and within that you can talk openly about gambling and the effects it can have if things get out of control (or any spending beyond your means). I'm sure we all know people in their 20's who are overdrawn, car loan etc and living beyond their means, but thats Ok right?
I've been thinking over the last few years as to what to do in Semi retirement hopefully in another 5 years time, would love to go into schools and deliver a money management/budgeting programme. Probably at the A Level age group, something to ponder.
I've known problem gamblers over the years, none so sad as a guy I only ever knew as Jack (not even sure that was his real name), a french guy, around 60 who worked in the markets (fruit & veg I think) and would frequent the William Hills opposite my old office in Cannon Street (this was around 2000/2001). Every day, without fail, he'd spend £300 in there, mostly on the machines with the occasional £5 on a horse. Why £300? Well thats what he could get out of his account via the cash machine. He'd stay until he lost the lot, sometimes 20 minutes, sometimes 5 hours, i'd seen him with as much as £5k on the machine, i.e. at least £4,700 in profit, yet he'd carry on and on until it had all gone.
He disappeared for about 6-9 months, I then saw him coming out of Cannon Street, he'd hit rock bottom, turned out he hadn't had a job for a while, was made redundant and got a 6 figure pay off, he'd done the lot, and worse he'd borrowed something like £35k on his mortgage for an 'extension' and also lost that. Every day he still got up and pretended to his wife he was off to work, until it had all gone and he'd admitted what he'd done, she booted him out and he was going through a divorce but seemed to be off the gambling and working as a cleaner, that was the last time I saw him.
Jack was addicted, i'm convinced he was actually addicted to losing as crazy as that sounds.
He wasn't a gambler because of advertising, he had an inherent addictive make up like so many gamblers (me included) and wasn't able to channel that away from gambling. My one criticism of the industry was the staff in hills all knew him, they all knew how big a problem he had and it was clear this wasn't some rich guy just having fun. I'd like to think that wouldn't happen now......without exaggeration I reckon he 'spent' probably £150k in there over 18 months.
As for the changes to £2 maximum stake, this hasn't really changed much, £2 every few seconds, you can still lose £300 in less than 15 minutes.
Long way of saying what I said at the start, education will change things and help those who would have otherwise needed it, ban on advertising in my view will have little if any effect.,
I hate the modern bookmaking industry with a passion and would dearly love to see them all closed down.
I think there’s a place for bookmaking and I don’t expect them to be a charity but they are pretty lame as far as I can see with taking bets, unless they can lay it off elsewhere . Why punters use them when betfair has a market available for most single bets I’ll never know .
Is there anyone out there who has a betting account and is a regular winner or up with the same company that isn’t betfair ?
I bet on horse racing. All of my accounts are restricted except Skybet and I'm in profit with them over the past 5 years, though I don't get BOG or any other offers. All the other accounts, over 20 in number, have been restricted, some within a couple of days, and not all were in profit. They obviously don't like the way I bet and I'm sure Bob could explain this and try to justify it, but in reality it boils down to the bookmakers maxim 'thou shalt not win'. Their advertising is misleading and deceitful. I hate the modern bookmaking industry with a passion and would dearly love to see them all closed down.
Yep, restricted by them all as well and I’m pretty sure I was a loser with at least half of them and when I called the Racing Post years back about how pathetic it all was and you couldn’t get a proper bet on with the restrictions the fella I spoke with sympathised but said it ‘twas ever thus and it wasn’t worth a story .
But come online and play our slots, casino etc, where we can be certain you can't make a profit, though we will make it look like you can, and you will be welcomed with open arms. Absolute arseholes.
Is there anyone out there who has a betting account and is a regular winner or up with the same company that isn’t betfair ?
I bet on horse racing. All of my accounts are restricted except Skybet and I'm in profit with them over the past 5 years, though I don't get BOG or any other offers. All the other accounts, over 20 in number, have been restricted, some within a couple of days, and not all were in profit. They obviously don't like the way I bet and I'm sure Bob could explain this and try to justify it, but in reality it boils down to the bookmakers maxim 'thou shalt not win'. Their advertising is misleading and deceitful. I hate the modern bookmaking industry with a passion and would dearly love to see them all closed down.
Yep, restricted by them all as well and I’m pretty sure I was a loser with at least half of them and when I called the Racing Post years back about how pathetic it all was and you couldn’t get a proper bet on with the restrictions the fella I spoke with sympathised but said it ‘twas ever thus and it wasn’t worth a story .
But come online and play our slots, casino etc, where we can be certain you can't make a profit, though we will make it look like you can, and you will be welcomed with open arms. Absolute arseholes.
Does it say on them we pay out 95% of what we take or whatever it is . Im sure the shops make more from that side than the actual betting side now
Is there anyone out there who has a betting account and is a regular winner or up with the same company that isn’t betfair ?
I bet on horse racing. All of my accounts are restricted except Skybet and I'm in profit with them over the past 5 years, though I don't get BOG or any other offers. All the other accounts, over 20 in number, have been restricted, some within a couple of days, and not all were in profit. They obviously don't like the way I bet and I'm sure Bob could explain this and try to justify it, but in reality it boils down to the bookmakers maxim 'thou shalt not win'. Their advertising is misleading and deceitful. I hate the modern bookmaking industry with a passion and would dearly love to see them all closed down.
Yep, restricted by them all as well and I’m pretty sure I was a loser with at least half of them and when I called the Racing Post years back about how pathetic it all was and you couldn’t get a proper bet on with the restrictions the fella I spoke with sympathised but said it ‘twas ever thus and it wasn’t worth a story .
But come online and play our slots, casino etc, where we can be certain you can't make a profit, though we will make it look like you can, and you will be welcomed with open arms. Absolute arseholes.
Does it say on them we pay out 95% of what we take or whatever it is . Im sure the shops make more from that side than the actual betting side now
Never played 'em mate, but I believe in the shops they are obliged to state that they only payout a certain percentage. Assume it must be the same online, buried somewhere in the small print.
I'm certain they were making more from the slots in the betting shops, that is why they cried like babies when the legislation changed re. the max stake per spin. I don't bet in shops, but used to go in to several bookies in Wimbledon during my lunch break. Always the same old sad, desperate characters swearing at the slot machines....
My only input would be for bookies to be as honest as tobacco manufacturers have to be
Chances are you will lose Bookies always win If you can't afford to lose, this isn't for you If you do win, we can restrict any future bets You have no right of appeal against gubbing from bookies
That said, its about control. Bookies I don't think have ever given a hoot about the destruction gambling can cause. There isn't many sadder sights than being in a bookmakers on a Friday and seeing someone in their work gear feeding all of their money into the fixed odds machines ignoring calls on their mobile but ultimately the care if the bookie is shown by the lady who works there dealing with the punter when they smash the machine up. The amount of profit margin in online gambling now should enable a lot more support that what is currently out there
I'd be happy for there to be no advertising for bookmakers but I wouldn't want any restrictions, I'm big enough and ugly enough to make my own decisions and don't need some horse fucker in the government telling me what decisions to make
My take, education will have a greater impact than a ban. I'm not that convinced the advertising on cigarettes had a major impact, more society's change of view and the greater medical knowledge. You only need to look at 'youngsters' now and how many take good care of their health, the Gym, fitness classes, cycling, running etc etc. Have sales gone down since they aren't on open display in the shops? I don't know but doubt it.
Try this report from ASH. Lobbyists, of course but highly respected, been around for years, fighting an uphill battle in the 80's
"Advertising" is perhaps a slight misnomer. There's a quote in there from a PMI exec. about the importance of the packaging design of cigarettes. That's the brand, in your hand. You can trust me on this much, no other FMCG brand sectors invest anything near as much time, resource, care and obsessive attention to detail regarding pack design as the tobacco mob do. To work on tobacco brand packaging is to work on the absolute top level in that field. Unfortunately.
Or put it more crudely. Follow the money. In most Central European markets, Philip Morris was dominant in market share, and in share of advertising spend. If, as it led the way in claiming, its advertising only influenced brand share, it ought to have been delighted by the proposal to ban advertising, since the others would have lost the main tool for eating away at their dominant position. Yet they were also the market leader in lobbying, both ethical and unethical against any and all bans or restrictions on their marketing tools. (I had direct experience of the shit they got up to). They reluctantly conceded some ground on mass advertising, because after all they still had their packaging. Now, quite rightly, that is being limited too.
When you evaluate the effect of these bans, headline "sales" is not the right measure, that is too crude. The goal is to reduce the recruitment of new users to the market. Sales will hold up for a while because there will be a large rump of older users who are completely hooked and smoke heavily (that's why CZ still ranks No 7 in global consumption, despite having halved the % of population who consume, over 20 odd years).
I wish I were convinced by your optimistic remarks about the health-consciousness of young people too. I know there are stats that indicate the trend, but isn't it mainly relating to those from more educated backgrounds? How would the obesity figures relate to your claim?. I think it is pretty much established that it's the educated element of societies that respond most readily to messages about health.
But I'm conscious that this is about gambling, and again for @bobmunro blood pressure, I'd like to emphasise that I'm not directly equating tobacco and gambling. I thought though that Bob's comparison with the Savings and Investments thread as an example of my hypocrisy was a bit off target. I'd be much more vulnerable to the charge if we started talking about alcohol marketing...
My take, education will have a greater impact than a ban. I'm not that convinced the advertising on cigarettes had a major impact, more society's change of view and the greater medical knowledge. You only need to look at 'youngsters' now and how many take good care of their health, the Gym, fitness classes, cycling, running etc etc. Have sales gone down since they aren't on open display in the shops? I don't know but doubt it.
Try this report from ASH. Lobbyists, of course but highly respected, been around for years, fighting an uphill battle in the 80's
"Advertising" is perhaps a slight misnomer. There's a quote in there from a PMI exec. about the importance of the packaging design of cigarettes. That's the brand, in your hand. You can trust me on this much, no other FMCG brand sectors invest anything near as much time, resource, care and obsessive attention to detail regarding pack design as the tobacco mob do. To work on tobacco brand packaging is to work on the absolute top level in that field. Unfortunately.
Or put it more crudely. Follow the money. In most Central European markets, Philip Morris was dominant in market share, and in share of advertising spend. If, as it led the way in claiming, its advertising only influenced brand share, it ought to have been delighted by the proposal to ban advertising, since the others would have lost the main tool for eating away at their dominant position. Yet they were also the market leader in lobbying, both ethical and unethical against any and all bans or restrictions on their marketing tools. (I had direct experience of the shit they got up to). They reluctantly conceded some ground on mass advertising, because after all they still had their packaging. Now, quite rightly, that is being limited too.
When you evaluate the effect of these bans, headline "sales" is not the right measure, that is too crude. The goal is to reduce the recruitment of new users to the market. Sales will hold up for a while because there will be a large rump of older users who are completely hooked and smoke heavily (that's why CZ still ranks No 7 in global consumption, despite having halved the % of population who consume, over 20 odd years).
I wish I were convinced by your optimistic remarks about the health-consciousness of young people too. I know there are stats that indicate the trend, but isn't it mainly relating to those from more educated backgrounds? How would the obesity figures relate to your claim?. I think it is pretty much established that it's the educated element of societies that respond most readily to messages about health.
But I'm conscious that this is about gambling, and again for @bobmunro blood pressure, I'd like to emphasise that I'm not directly equating tobacco and gambling. I thought though that Bob's comparison with the Savings and Investments thread as an example of my hypocrisy was a bit off target. I'd be much more vulnerable to the charge if we started talking about alcohol marketing...
Not sure it's too much off target!
Which of the vices of smoking, drinking, and gambling does the following statement best describe?:
RISK WARNING: The value of shares and the income from
them may go down as well as up and you may not get back the money you
invested. It should not be assumed that the value of investments will
always rise. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future
results and any investment in shares carries the risk that all or some
of the capital invested might be lost. Investors should carefully
consider their own personal financial circumstances before dealing in
the stock market and should seek independent professional advice prior
to investing. Investors should ensure that they have the financial
capacity to bear the risk and only invest money you can afford to lose.
You can rest easy, Richard - I have taken a double dose of Ramipril this morning ;-)
Does the retail industry identify problem shoppers who spend hundreds maybe thousands every month with money they haven't got?
False equivalence. Some degree of retail is absolutely necessary, for food, clothing, essentials. No amount of gambling is necessary at all. It's purely choice. These are not the same thing.
Neither are drinking, smoking, holidays, the latest smart phone, a £100k car, Rolex watches .......... I could go on. Once I’ve paid my taxes my money is mine to do whatever I want to with, as long as by doing so is not breaking any law.
It is not a false equivalence at all, just another example of the nanny state telling me how to live my life and making decisions on my behalf that are my responsibility to make.
Or is it the government trying to protect the vulnerable members of society from abuse and addiction?
Does the retail industry identify problem shoppers who spend hundreds maybe thousands every month with money they haven't got?
False equivalence. Some degree of retail is absolutely necessary, for food, clothing, essentials. No amount of gambling is necessary at all. It's purely choice. These are not the same thing.
Neither are drinking, smoking, holidays, the latest smart phone, a £100k car, Rolex watches .......... I could go on. Once I’ve paid my taxes my money is mine to do whatever I want to with, as long as by doing so is not breaking any law.
It is not a false equivalence at all, just another example of the nanny state telling me how to live my life and making decisions on my behalf that are my responsibility to make.
Or is it the government trying to protect the vulnerable members of society from abuse and addiction?
A quote from one of my previous posts:
'Protect the vulnerable yes, but let the 99.5% of gamblers who don't have a problem carry on with what they enjoy doing'.
Which they can continue to do without having adverts rammed down their throat every 5 minutes, which almost makes it seem like you shouldn’t be watching a game of footy without having a bet riding on it.
I watched my dad gamble away everything my family had, his business, house, cars the lot, when he finally hit rock bottom and stopped, the things the bookies did to lure him back were absolutely sickening, including free FA Cup final tickets. So I find it hard to believe these companies are not over the moon to see a punter blow anything they can get their hands on.
Been with the wife 15 years , married 13yrs. If someone told me 17yrs ago that I would have my gambling virtually under control over the next 10 years I would of broke down in tears of happiness. I'm here 17 years later with the gambling virtually under control. Not as happy as I thought I would be though. Still addictive and compulsive in nearly everything thing I do. You could ban betting ads , even ban betting tomorrow. Most of the 0.5/1% Bob's talking about me included will still have their problems.
Been with the wife 15 years , married 13yrs. If someone told me 17yrs ago that I would have my gambling virtually under control over the next 10 years I would of broke down in tears of happiness. I'm here 17 years later with the gambling virtually under control. Not as happy as I thought I would be though. Still addictive and compulsive in nearly everything thing I do. You could ban betting ads , even ban betting tomorrow. Most of the 0.5/1% Bob's talking about me included will still have their problems.
But it might stop the future 'problem gamblers' from ever starting and surely that is worth doing?
Which they can continue to do without having adverts rammed down their throat every 5 minutes, which almost makes it seem like you shouldn’t be watching a game of footy without having a bet riding on it.
I watched my dad gamble away everything my family had, his business, house, cars the lot, when he finally hit rock bottom and stopped, the things the bookies did to lure him back were absolutely sickening, including free FA Cup final tickets. So I find it hard to believe these companies are not over the moon to see a punter blow anything they can get their hands on.
That is something I really can't get my head around as a sports fan. "It matters more when you have money on it". To me - does it f**k. I enjoy football, cricket, rugby etc because I enjoy them, having a fiscal interest means jack all to me. If you can't enjoy it for the sake of it - as most of us did for years and years and years - then for me, you are missing the essence of sport. The Pools or an acca on English football of a Saturday was about as far as it got, it was a sideline. Then you were waiting for the results to come in, not watching a live match getting "more" out of it just because you have a fiver riding on it...
I am aware that I am now guilty of going away from the main thread. Apologies.
Despite spending every other Saturday as a child waiting outside the "Turf accountants" in Abbey Wood while my dad put his bets on before we took the train to Charlton, or maybe because of it, I've never really got the betting bug.
I do bet £5 at a bookies before a home game or £10 on the national if I trust @PeanutsMolloy's dodgy systems and I enjoy a night at the dogs or in a casino very occasionally but I think I'm too risk adverse/tight to put larger amounts down.
But I'll spend more money on other things that others will see as pointless/stupid. My choice as it is theirs.
I do think there are three issues with some of the advertising for gambling, however.
Firstly, it is often shown as risk free. "Money back if...." Type bets.
Secondly, it's shown as all lads (and it is almost always young men) together down the pub, having a laugh, getting one over your mates when the reality is more often than not the punter alone at home with a screen. Why else advertise before and during live games? This isn't unique to gambling advertising (see Lynx or most alcohol adverts for similar our product makes you cool messaging).
Thirdly, it is shown to children under 18. Both during games and via shirt and pitch side sponsors. We have watersheds for other products, why not gambling?
I'm certainly not anti-gambling or calling for a cigarette type ban on advertising/promotion but it is becoming or has become almost constant during football broadcasts.
Footnote: as for most betting ads being terrible "art" so what? Can anyone not remember the shake and vac song once they have heard it?
Which they can continue to do without having adverts rammed down their throat every 5 minutes, which almost makes it seem like you shouldn’t be watching a game of footy without having a bet riding on it.
I watched my dad gamble away everything my family had, his business, house, cars the lot, when he finally hit rock bottom and stopped, the things the bookies did to lure him back were absolutely sickening, including free FA Cup final tickets. So I find it hard to believe these companies are not over the moon to see a punter blow anything they can get their hands on.
If dad had been the inverse of what happened and had been successful, he’d have had his stake size reduced and he wouldn’t have been able to win as much . Mainly losers welcome .
Comments
Can't recall the exact numbers but it seems there are a few people who spend/lose a lot
If the ad ban didnt play a role, what did? Czech public service advertising has always been pathetic ( how I tried and failed to change that) and there was hardly any ad campaign against smoking. Pubs were slow to cater for even non-smoking spaces. Yet young people turned their back on smoking in huge numbers. It was no longer cool. The messages of cool had been silenced.
So an ad ban would work to some extent, I am sure. It would probably drastically cut the number of new entrants to the market. It still shocks me to watch a televised English game and see how, based on the ads, football and gambling go hand in hand. Young people have absorbed that, from the moment they started watching footie on TV.
That said, there are differences between tobacco and gambling as products, and the companies involved. I’m arguing an ad ban would be effective. I am not arguing that a total ban is justified.
Well actually, there is one reason to ban gambling advertising. Most of it is, from a professional POV, utter shite. It makes Lidl look like the last word in sophistication. All involved should be stuck in special prison cells with giant Tv screens and soundbars and subjected to their own execrable output for hours on end.
All of my accounts are restricted except Skybet and I'm in profit with them over the past 5 years, though I don't get BOG or any other offers.
All the other accounts, over 20 in number, have been restricted, some within a couple of days, and not all were in profit.
They obviously don't like the way I bet and I'm sure Bob could explain this and try to justify it, but in reality it boils down to the bookmakers maxim 'thou shalt not win'.
Their advertising is misleading and deceitful.
I hate the modern bookmaking industry with a passion and would dearly love to see them all closed down.
Think you saw the red mist a bit there Bob, which I could understand as the lone rep of the industry on this thread, but maybe I didnt properly explain my conclusion : an ad ban on gambling would reduce the total number of new gamblers. As an advertising pro, and particularly with reference to tobacco, I am convinced of that. Just a technical point about advertising. But I also said that I am not arguing a total ban ( on advertising) is justified. I accept some of the arguments that you make. Gambling is not tobacco, which will definitely make you seriously ill if you use the product in line with the manufacturer’s “instructions”.
The answer to your challenge to my comment about the shiteness of advertisng for gambling is that with the exčeption of Paddy Power, they are uniformly shite, so they cancel each other out. Compare the average gambling TV spot at half time to the average beer spot. Same broad target audience isn’t it?
i was very interested in your remark, if I understood it well, that the UK gambling market is in some decline. If so, what does the industry put the decline down to?
The 3 ads on tonight didnt feature any women.
I'd like to see much much greater financial education in schools, compulsory part of the curriculum right up to year 11. Of course pensions, savings, debt management, good debt bad debt etc etc and within that you can talk openly about gambling and the effects it can have if things get out of control (or any spending beyond your means). I'm sure we all know people in their 20's who are overdrawn, car loan etc and living beyond their means, but thats Ok right?
I've been thinking over the last few years as to what to do in Semi retirement hopefully in another 5 years time, would love to go into schools and deliver a money management/budgeting programme. Probably at the A Level age group, something to ponder.
I've known problem gamblers over the years, none so sad as a guy I only ever knew as Jack (not even sure that was his real name), a french guy, around 60 who worked in the markets (fruit & veg I think) and would frequent the William Hills opposite my old office in Cannon Street (this was around 2000/2001). Every day, without fail, he'd spend £300 in there, mostly on the machines with the occasional £5 on a horse. Why £300? Well thats what he could get out of his account via the cash machine. He'd stay until he lost the lot, sometimes 20 minutes, sometimes 5 hours, i'd seen him with as much as £5k on the machine, i.e. at least £4,700 in profit, yet he'd carry on and on until it had all gone.
He disappeared for about 6-9 months, I then saw him coming out of Cannon Street, he'd hit rock bottom, turned out he hadn't had a job for a while, was made redundant and got a 6 figure pay off, he'd done the lot, and worse he'd borrowed something like £35k on his mortgage for an 'extension' and also lost that. Every day he still got up and pretended to his wife he was off to work, until it had all gone and he'd admitted what he'd done, she booted him out and he was going through a divorce but seemed to be off the gambling and working as a cleaner, that was the last time I saw him.
Jack was addicted, i'm convinced he was actually addicted to losing as crazy as that sounds.
He wasn't a gambler because of advertising, he had an inherent addictive make up like so many gamblers (me included) and wasn't able to channel that away from gambling. My one criticism of the industry was the staff in hills all knew him, they all knew how big a problem he had and it was clear this wasn't some rich guy just having fun. I'd like to think that wouldn't happen now......without exaggeration I reckon he 'spent' probably £150k in there over 18 months.
As for the changes to £2 maximum stake, this hasn't really changed much, £2 every few seconds, you can still lose £300 in less than 15 minutes.
Long way of saying what I said at the start, education will change things and help those who would have otherwise needed it, ban on advertising in my view will have little if any effect.,
Why punters use them when betfair has a market available for most single bets I’ll never know .
Absolute arseholes.
Im sure the shops make more from that side than the actual betting side now
Assume it must be the same online, buried somewhere in the small print.
I'm certain they were making more from the slots in the betting shops, that is why they cried like babies when the legislation changed re. the max stake per spin.
I don't bet in shops, but used to go in to several bookies in Wimbledon during my lunch break. Always the same old sad, desperate characters swearing at the slot machines....
Chances are you will lose
Bookies always win
If you can't afford to lose, this isn't for you
If you do win, we can restrict any future bets
You have no right of appeal against gubbing from bookies
That said, its about control. Bookies I don't think have ever given a hoot about the destruction gambling can cause. There isn't many sadder sights than being in a bookmakers on a Friday and seeing someone in their work gear feeding all of their money into the fixed odds machines ignoring calls on their mobile but ultimately the care if the bookie is shown by the lady who works there dealing with the punter when they smash the machine up. The amount of profit margin in online gambling now should enable a lot more support that what is currently out there
I'd be happy for there to be no advertising for bookmakers but I wouldn't want any restrictions, I'm big enough and ugly enough to make my own decisions and don't need some horse fucker in the government telling me what decisions to make
"Advertising" is perhaps a slight misnomer. There's a quote in there from a PMI exec. about the importance of the packaging design of cigarettes. That's the brand, in your hand. You can trust me on this much, no other FMCG brand sectors invest anything near as much time, resource, care and obsessive attention to detail regarding pack design as the tobacco mob do. To work on tobacco brand packaging is to work on the absolute top level in that field. Unfortunately.
Or put it more crudely. Follow the money. In most Central European markets, Philip Morris was dominant in market share, and in share of advertising spend. If, as it led the way in claiming, its advertising only influenced brand share, it ought to have been delighted by the proposal to ban advertising, since the others would have lost the main tool for eating away at their dominant position. Yet they were also the market leader in lobbying, both ethical and unethical against any and all bans or restrictions on their marketing tools. (I had direct experience of the shit they got up to). They reluctantly conceded some ground on mass advertising, because after all they still had their packaging. Now, quite rightly, that is being limited too.
When you evaluate the effect of these bans, headline "sales" is not the right measure, that is too crude. The goal is to reduce the recruitment of new users to the market. Sales will hold up for a while because there will be a large rump of older users who are completely hooked and smoke heavily (that's why CZ still ranks No 7 in global consumption, despite having halved the % of population who consume, over 20 odd years).
I wish I were convinced by your optimistic remarks about the health-consciousness of young people too. I know there are stats that indicate the trend, but isn't it mainly relating to those from more educated backgrounds? How would the obesity figures relate to your claim?. I think it is pretty much established that it's the educated element of societies that respond most readily to messages about health.
But I'm conscious that this is about gambling, and again for @bobmunro blood pressure, I'd like to emphasise that I'm not directly equating tobacco and gambling. I thought though that Bob's comparison with the Savings and Investments thread as an example of my hypocrisy was a bit off target. I'd be much more vulnerable to the charge if we started talking about alcohol marketing...
If someone told me 17yrs ago that I would have my gambling virtually under control over the next 10 years I would of broke down in tears of happiness.
I'm here 17 years later with the gambling virtually under control.
Not as happy as I thought I would be though.
Still addictive and compulsive in nearly everything thing I do.
You could ban betting ads , even ban betting tomorrow.
Most of the 0.5/1% Bob's talking about me included will still have their problems.
I am aware that I am now guilty of going away from the main thread. Apologies.
I do bet £5 at a bookies before a home game or £10 on the national if I trust @PeanutsMolloy's dodgy systems and I enjoy a night at the dogs or in a casino very occasionally but I think I'm too risk adverse/tight to put larger amounts down.
But I'll spend more money on other things that others will see as pointless/stupid. My choice as it is theirs.
I do think there are three issues with some of the advertising for gambling, however.
Firstly, it is often shown as risk free. "Money back if...." Type bets.
Secondly, it's shown as all lads (and it is almost always young men) together down the pub, having a laugh, getting one over your mates when the reality is more often than not the punter alone at home with a screen. Why else advertise before and during live games? This isn't unique to gambling advertising (see Lynx or most alcohol adverts for similar our product makes you cool messaging).
Thirdly, it is shown to children under 18. Both during games and via shirt and pitch side sponsors. We have watersheds for other products, why not gambling?
I'm certainly not anti-gambling or calling for a cigarette type ban on advertising/promotion but it is becoming or has become almost constant during football broadcasts.
Footnote: as for most betting ads being terrible "art" so what? Can anyone not remember the shake and vac song once they have heard it?
Mainly losers welcome .