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.
You can’t get your head around. However, for me that’s 100% the reason I bet on a game. If I’m watching Charlton the desire as a fan for us to win gives me the higher adrenaline rush of the game. Watching Liverpool v ManUtd that rush does not exist (I could not give a shit who wins or what the result is) Therefore if I am going to watch the game, the bet gives me the adrenalin addition, that the lack of supporting the teams has taken away.
I also back Charlton as well. However, this is because as a fan who watches every game, I believe this can give me a level of insider information, that bookies don’t consider. Sometimes I’m right, and sometimes wrong.
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 .
Simple answer to all those who moan that the bookmaker always wins (no shit Sherlock) - don't bet then!
Think I must've gone through well over a hundred accounts over the years. In my view sports and "casino" should be totally separate, licence should only allow provision of one or the other. If Ladbrokes, for example, want to run casino games online they have to set up totally different entity/name with no link to the sports operation. Users have to have separate accounts too.
Nearly half of that went in income tax (the bulk of her pay was salary rather than fiddling it with dividends) - plus around £100m to charity.
That’s alright then.
What's wrong with it?
I’ve seen first hand the effect gambling addiction can have on not only individuals but whole communities. Not a particularly appealing way to make a living but each to their own.
Nearly half of that went in income tax (the bulk of her pay was salary rather than fiddling it with dividends) - plus around £100m to charity.
That’s alright then.
What's wrong with it?
I’ve seen first hand the effect gambling addiction can have on not only individuals but whole communities. Not a particularly appealing way to make a living but each to their own.
Could say the same for anyone who's working in a pub or bar that sells alcohol. Should we close pubs and bars and ban alcohol to protect those with addiction problems?
Interesting to hear, genuinely, how gambling impacts on whole communities?
Nearly half of that went in income tax (the bulk of her pay was salary rather than fiddling it with dividends) - plus around £100m to charity.
That’s alright then.
What's wrong with it?
Aside from the millions made from people’s gambling addictions?
But only 0.5% of gamblers are problem gamblers so the other 99.5% aren't.
So, at worst, a tiny fraction of that came from "people's gambling addictions".
Ok let’s assume that 0.5% figure is correct. And to be generous say the ‘nearly half’ is half. I’m sure someone better at maths than me can work it out more accurately but 0.5% of £110 million is still a huge amount to make from people’s misery/desperation/addiction etc. So I’d say that’s what’s wrong with it.
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?
Close the gambling down tomorrow then. But let's not pick on one industry though where there might be addiction. Drinking and smoking need to go also add sugar to the list. And if were thinking of the health and wealth of the country do away with credit cards.
Nearly half of that went in income tax (the bulk of her pay was salary rather than fiddling it with dividends) - plus around £100m to charity.
That’s alright then.
What's wrong with it?
Aside from the millions made from people’s gambling addictions?
But only 0.5% of gamblers are problem gamblers so the other 99.5% aren't.
So, at worst, a tiny fraction of that came from "people's gambling addictions".
Not necessarily.
The 99.5% non problematic gamblers could be gambling a quid whereas the problem gamblers tens or hundreds of thousands.
I'm sure it's somewhere in the middle but the 0.5% of problem gamblers will likely make up significantly more of bookie's % of profits in terms of money they lose as individuals.
Nearly half of that went in income tax (the bulk of her pay was salary rather than fiddling it with dividends) - plus around £100m to charity.
That’s alright then.
What's wrong with it?
Aside from the millions made from people’s gambling addictions?
But only 0.5% of gamblers are problem gamblers so the other 99.5% aren't.
So, at worst, a tiny fraction of that came from "people's gambling addictions".
Not necessarily.
The 99.5% non problematic gamblers could be gambling a quid whereas the problem gamblers tens or hundreds of thousands.
I'm sure it's somewhere in the middle but the 0.5% of problem gamblers will likely make up significantly more of bookie's % of profits in terms of money they lose as individuals.
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 .
Simple answer to all those who moan that the bookmaker always wins (no shit Sherlock) - don't bet then!
Perhaps that could be the slogan for the new Bet365 advertising campaign. Would you glorious, charitable leader care to comment on restricting accounts to pennies, withdrawing offers, BOG etc ? You know, all the stuff they don't mention on those TV ads.
Gambling as an addiction (or other "behavioral" addiction I suppose) is slightly different to an addiction to cigarettes or alcohol or other drugs inasmuch as an addictive substance is exactly that, there is a chemical dependence that builds up (often parallel to a physical resistance causing the quantities to increase.)
With gambling, it's more psychological and a thrill of taking the chance or proving yourself right, showing you are smarter than the bookies and so on (I'm generalising admittedly but I am no Grapevine so needs must.)
This to me raises the question of whether some people have more "addictive" personalities and are more vulnerable. Speaking for myself, I know that as an autistic person I'm very prone to habit/routine forming behaviours and if I started betting, even small amounts, I would end up doing it purely out of force of habit and completely without properly considering the potential consequences.
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.
You still owe me a Euro for the bet on the two drops of condensation running down the window in that Hotel in Abbey.
Nearly half of that went in income tax (the bulk of her pay was salary rather than fiddling it with dividends) - plus around £100m to charity.
That’s alright then.
What's wrong with it?
Aside from the millions made from people’s gambling addictions?
But only 0.5% of gamblers are problem gamblers so the other 99.5% aren't.
So, at worst, a tiny fraction of that came from "people's gambling addictions".
Not necessarily.
The 99.5% non problematic gamblers could be gambling a quid whereas the problem gamblers tens or hundreds of thousands.
I'm sure it's somewhere in the middle but the 0.5% of problem gamblers will likely make up significantly more of bookie's % of profits in terms of money they lose as individuals.
Fair point but that still makes a lot of assumptions about that firm's business model and that people who have a problem are automatically the biggest punters. The problem will be related to their income ie what they can afford to lose.
I still feel that singling out one UK based, tax paying, charity donating, football club (wrong one but still) supporting owner is missing the point. Gambling is not, like alcohol or shopping, intrinsically bad so she is not the evil one here. She's offering a legal and for most people harmless, fun service from which she makes a very, very good living.
The betting industry is doing a lot, but could do more IMHO, to protect those with addictions but let's not make perfect the enemy of good
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 .
Simple answer to all those who moan that the bookmaker always wins (no shit Sherlock) - don't bet then!
If the enticement to bet wasn't rammed down everyone's throat every 5 minutes by cynically crafted and targeted advertising campaigns to prompt as many people to do so then very many probably wouldn't.
It is unavoidable to watch a game of football whether 8 or 80 nowadays without having a plethora of adverts that have been devised by marketing and behavioural experts to tap into the psychology of punters and would be punters.
Many won't fall for it, may will have the discipline to handle it and bet what they can afford but there are kids growing up now and this whole current generation who are being conditioned that gambling is a harmless and normal mainstream thing and can't be dangerous as cuddly Kris Kamara and co wouldn't be pushing it etc. many of whose lives will be wrecked by gambling in years to come.
Reminds me of the old cigarette ads of the 60s.
It's become so mainstream and normalised and such a revenue generator for the exchequer that to hell with the consequences and lives ruined by it.
And what do we do....give honours to the billionaire profiteers as if it is some form of noble industry or good for society.
The money given to charity by these companies will partly have come from the misery and loss of punters many of whose lives and families lives have been ruined.
Should it be banned? Probably not but the false equivalence arguments of cigs, booze and shares are all regulated in their target advertising and in the latter in terms of affordability and suitability.
Can't watch a game of football without poxy adverts on before after and during each game and on shirts and stadia and that's the issue.
Silly little "gamble aware" disclaimers and removing ads on kid's shirts are as ineffectual as a "don't drink too much" being printed on the bottom of a pint glass and just legal wranglings to allow the industry to demonstrate some false level of morality and care.
The whole business model is to profiteer from the misery and loss of others nothing else. At least if they were honest about that many would not baulk at the false morality and many would probably not be duped into parting with their dough including those whose lives it utterly wrecks.
Should we ban football clubs from advertising matchday tickets because a tiny percentage of customers get carried away, take things too far and get involved in football violence etc.
If kids didnt get presented with advertising asking them to purchase matchday streams or tickets to watch their local club then they wouldn't get so attached and none of the above would ever happen right?
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 .
Simple answer to all those who moan that the bookmaker always wins (no shit Sherlock) - don't bet then!
Perhaps that could be the slogan for the new Bet365 advertising campaign. Would you glorious, charitable leader care to comment on restricting accounts to pennies, withdrawing offers, BOG etc ? You know, all the stuff they don't mention on those TV ads.
I don't think I need to tell you why you are restricted - I'm sure you are all too aware.
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?
Close the gambling down tomorrow then. But let's not pick on one industry though where there might be addiction. Drinking and smoking need to go also add sugar to the list. And if were thinking of the health and wealth of the country do away with credit cards.
Or, protect children and allow adults to continue to gamble, why does it have to be all or nothing?
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?
Close the gambling down tomorrow then. But let's not pick on one industry though where there might be addiction. Drinking and smoking need to go also add sugar to the list. And if were thinking of the health and wealth of the country do away with credit cards.
Or, protect children and allow adults to continue to gamble, why does it have to be all or nothing?
Because there is no room for nuance in the modern world. Pick a side and go all in in 'scuse the pun.
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?
Close the gambling down tomorrow then. But let's not pick on one industry though where there might be addiction. Drinking and smoking need to go also add sugar to the list. And if were thinking of the health and wealth of the country do away with credit cards.
Or, protect children and allow adults to continue to gamble, why does it have to be all or nothing?
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 .
Simple answer to all those who moan that the bookmaker always wins (no shit Sherlock) - don't bet then!
Perhaps that could be the slogan for the new Bet365 advertising campaign. Would you glorious, charitable leader care to comment on restricting accounts to pennies, withdrawing offers, BOG etc ? You know, all the stuff they don't mention on those TV ads.
I don't think I need to tell you why you are restricted - I'm sure you are all too aware.
as a loser who was restricted with bet365 the answer I got (4 losing bets of around a grand and 1 winning bet , all odds around evens spread out over a year or two ) was we don't like your style of betting , so bizarre . I said if you're best price I'll take it but I'm not backing evens when its 6/5 elsewhere .
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?
Close the gambling down tomorrow then. But let's not pick on one industry though where there might be addiction. Drinking and smoking need to go also add sugar to the list. And if were thinking of the health and wealth of the country do away with credit cards.
Or, protect children and allow adults to continue to gamble, why does it have to be all or nothing?
On that you have my entire agreement.
So you'd agree with banning gambling adverts during the daytime?
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?
Close the gambling down tomorrow then. But let's not pick on one industry though where there might be addiction. Drinking and smoking need to go also add sugar to the list. And if were thinking of the health and wealth of the country do away with credit cards.
Or, protect children and allow adults to continue to gamble, why does it have to be all or nothing?
Of course we need to protect kids. I do wonder though how many kids are allowed a 50p £1 e/w bet on the grand national every year?
Nope, sorry, I really don't see the equivalence with shares and funds at all. Cryptos are an entirely different matter, but then I've been giving the crypto crew quite a hard time about them anyway.
It's a fact, isn't it, that over lets say 5 years, most regular gamblers are in loss. Yet on the S&I thread we are busy telling new punters that if they invest now in easy to understand passive funds, history tells us that they will massively beat inflation (and thus cash in the bank account) over 5 years plus. And currently that thread is full of faintly smug remarks of us older hands showing up to 20% gains in portfolio in 2020, against a background of global turmoil and a FTSE100 down 12% on the year. Isn't the lesson there, that more people should be investing in funds at least, especially young people, and ideally putting money there that currently they are spunking on betting? That is after all what the UK govt's pension provision relies on. Look after ourselves for later life because the State can't afford to. It suggests that as someone remarked on that thread, it's about time schools started teaching the basics of investing.
The more you educate yourself about markets and the companies in them, the more likely you are to make decent long term profits, which won't disappear overnight. Nobody can say that about betting on football, or anything else.
Comments
Nearly half of that went in income tax (the bulk of her pay was salary rather than fiddling it with dividends) - plus around £100m to charity.
Simple answer to all those who moan that the bookmaker always wins (no shit Sherlock) - don't bet then!
So, at worst, a tiny fraction of that came from "people's gambling addictions".
Interesting to hear, genuinely, how gambling impacts on whole communities?
But let's not pick on one industry though where there might be addiction.
Drinking and smoking need to go also add sugar to the list.
And if were thinking of the health and wealth of the country do away with credit cards.
Not necessarily.
The 99.5% non problematic gamblers could be gambling a quid whereas the problem gamblers tens or hundreds of thousands.
I'm sure it's somewhere in the middle but the 0.5% of problem gamblers will likely make up significantly more of bookie's % of profits in terms of money they lose as individuals.
Would you glorious, charitable leader care to comment on restricting accounts to pennies, withdrawing offers, BOG etc ?
You know, all the stuff they don't mention on those TV ads.
With gambling, it's more psychological and a thrill of taking the chance or proving yourself right, showing you are smarter than the bookies and so on (I'm generalising admittedly but I am no Grapevine so needs must.)
This to me raises the question of whether some people have more "addictive" personalities and are more vulnerable. Speaking for myself, I know that as an autistic person I'm very prone to habit/routine forming behaviours and if I started betting, even small amounts, I would end up doing it purely out of force of habit and completely without properly considering the potential consequences.
I still feel that singling out one UK based, tax paying, charity donating, football club (wrong one but still) supporting owner is missing the point. Gambling is not, like alcohol or shopping, intrinsically bad so she is not the evil one here. She's offering a legal and for most people harmless, fun service from which she makes a very, very good living.
The betting industry is doing a lot, but could do more IMHO, to protect those with addictions but let's not make perfect the enemy of good
If the enticement to bet wasn't rammed down everyone's throat every 5 minutes by cynically crafted and targeted advertising campaigns to prompt as many people to do so then very many probably wouldn't.
It is unavoidable to watch a game of football whether 8 or 80 nowadays without having a plethora of adverts that have been devised by marketing and behavioural experts to tap into the psychology of punters and would be punters.
Many won't fall for it, may will have the discipline to handle it and bet what they can afford but there are kids growing up now and this whole current generation who are being conditioned that gambling is a harmless and normal mainstream thing and can't be dangerous as cuddly Kris Kamara and co wouldn't be pushing it etc. many of whose lives will be wrecked by gambling in years to come.
Reminds me of the old cigarette ads of the 60s.
It's become so mainstream and normalised and such a revenue generator for the exchequer that to hell with the consequences and lives ruined by it.
And what do we do....give honours to the billionaire profiteers as if it is some form of noble industry or good for society.
The money given to charity by these companies will partly have come from the misery and loss of punters many of whose lives and families lives have been ruined.
Should it be banned? Probably not but the false equivalence arguments of cigs, booze and shares are all regulated in their target advertising and in the latter in terms of affordability and suitability.
Can't watch a game of football without poxy adverts on before after and during each game and on shirts and stadia and that's the issue.
Silly little "gamble aware" disclaimers and removing ads on kid's shirts are as ineffectual as a "don't drink too much" being printed on the bottom of a pint glass and just legal wranglings to allow the industry to demonstrate some false level of morality and care.
The whole business model is to profiteer from the misery and loss of others nothing else. At least if they were honest about that many would not baulk at the false morality and many would probably not be duped into parting with their dough including those whose lives it utterly wrecks.
If kids didnt get presented with advertising asking them to purchase matchday streams or tickets to watch their local club then they wouldn't get so attached and none of the above would ever happen right?
On that you have my entire agreement.
I said if you're best price I'll take it but I'm not backing evens when its 6/5 elsewhere .
I do wonder though how many kids are allowed a 50p £1 e/w bet on the grand national every year?
Nope, sorry, I really don't see the equivalence with shares and funds at all. Cryptos are an entirely different matter, but then I've been giving the crypto crew quite a hard time about them anyway.
It's a fact, isn't it, that over lets say 5 years, most regular gamblers are in loss. Yet on the S&I thread we are busy telling new punters that if they invest now in easy to understand passive funds, history tells us that they will massively beat inflation (and thus cash in the bank account) over 5 years plus. And currently that thread is full of faintly smug remarks of us older hands showing up to 20% gains in portfolio in 2020, against a background of global turmoil and a FTSE100 down 12% on the year. Isn't the lesson there, that more people should be investing in funds at least, especially young people, and ideally putting money there that currently they are spunking on betting? That is after all what the UK govt's pension provision relies on. Look after ourselves for later life because the State can't afford to. It suggests that as someone remarked on that thread, it's about time schools started teaching the basics of investing.
The more you educate yourself about markets and the companies in them, the more likely you are to make decent long term profits, which won't disappear overnight. Nobody can say that about betting on football, or anything else.