Being only an occasional and small amount gambler and fortunately somebody who isn't really open to addictions, I would imagine it is hard to see how you can stop somebody with a betting addiction seeing as there are so many different ways to gamble for the determined. Although I appreciate that I may be missing something it is surely the same with drinking. How do you stop an alcoholic from drinking? It must be helping and supporting them as individuals as pubs and sources of drink will always be there. That is where anything that highlights the issue from the perspective of a victim has to help. I haven't seen the programme yet, but will catch up with it.
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
Where did I say that? Of course we do, as does any other commercial operation, but not from those identified as having a problem or potential problem, for which we spend millions on research, AI/algorithm creation and staff dedicated to just this area, and willingly lose millions more in revenue. That's 0.5% - the other 99.5% only play with money where losing would not cause them problems and we have affordability and due diligence processes to ensure where humanly possible that that is the case.
So, are those the stats @bobmunro? Of those who gamble, only 1 in 200 has a problem or potential problem?
Just asking, as I would have suspected higher.
1 in 200 has an identified problem - it could be argued that all of the other 99.5% have the potential! But in reality it is another 4.5% i.e. 5% have an identified problem or a potential to develop one.
Self regulation in most industries is worthless. Like it or not we like in a capitalist world where profit is key to business. I would suggest therefore that asking industries themselves to identify the trade-off between profit and customer wellness is doomed to failure.
I work in the investment banking industry......one which pretty much brought the world to it's knees in the late 00s. Since then masses of international and domestic regulation has been (rightly) forced on the industry to avoid a recurrence (hopefully). Additional self policing by more ethical companies will always be well received - but stringent national / international regulation is the only real way to keep industries in check.
Betting is very highly regulated, not self-regulated!
Self regulation in most industries is worthless. Like it or not we like in a capitalist world where profit is key to business. I would suggest therefore that asking industries themselves to identify the trade-off between profit and customer wellness is doomed to failure.
I work in the investment banking industry......one which pretty much brought the world to it's knees in the late 00s. Since then masses of international and domestic regulation has been (rightly) forced on the industry to avoid a recurrence (hopefully). Additional self policing by more ethical companies will always be well received - but stringent national / international regulation is the only real way to keep industries in check.
Betting is very highly regulated, not self-regulated!
I know mate. I was referring to Seth's post above where he appears to be asking about (I assumed additional) self regulation in the gambling industry.
So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.
I was listening to The Price of Football podcast earlier this week, and they had a professional gambler interviewed on there. His sole income is from researching, analysing betting markets and odds to make his money through winning bets.
He said that he can no longer have betting accounts in his own name now, as they’ve all caught onto the fact that he wins a lot more than he loses.
The whole thing just seems like a con (from the bookie side).
On a side note - he was also a Rochdale fan so worth tuning in to to hear their discussion around the takeover/Matt Southall.
So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.
I was listening to The Price of Football podcast earlier this week, and they had a professional gambler interviewed on there. His sole income is from researching, analysing betting markets and odds to make his money through winning bets.
He said that he can no longer have betting accounts in his own name now, as they’ve all caught onto the fact that he wins a lot more than he loses.
The whole thing just seems like a con (from the bookie side).
On a side note - he was also a Rochdale fan so worth tuning in to to hear their discussion around the takeover/Matt Southall.
So this is a guy who makes his sole income from gambling?
Due to the fact that a bet needs to be a commercial arrangement between two parties who are both willing to enter into the contract, there is nothing in place that dictates that the gambling business must accept your bet. This is exactly the same as any other business operating in the UK. As with commercial businesses, offers may be withdrawn whenever the company feels like it. And so too, gambling businesses may withdraw offers or refuse bets as a way of reducing the risk to their own business.
No business would enter into a contract knowing they would be selling the product or service at a loss.
Getting other people to place the bets?
This is unlawful, and also against all bookmakers terms and conditions. Not least because the operator has a legal obligation to know their customer - what would stop an adult placing bets on behalf on minors?
So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.
I was listening to The Price of Football podcast earlier this week, and they had a professional gambler interviewed on there. His sole income is from researching, analysing betting markets and odds to make his money through winning bets.
He said that he can no longer have betting accounts in his own name now, as they’ve all caught onto the fact that he wins a lot more than he loses.
The whole thing just seems like a con (from the bookie side).
On a side note - he was also a Rochdale fan so worth tuning in to to hear their discussion around the takeover/Matt Southall.
This is unlawful, and also against all bookmakers terms and conditions. Not least because the operator has a legal obligation to know their customer - what would stop an adult placing bets on behalf on minors?
I love the hypocrisy round this bit too. Bet - lose, bet - lose, bet - lose, bet - lose, bet - win, withdraw, please can we have a copy of your ID to ensure you are who you say you are. Sorry that's not enough, please take a selfie holding the ID...
Self regulation in most industries is worthless. Like it or not we like in a capitalist world where profit is key to business. I would suggest therefore that asking industries themselves to identify the trade-off between profit and customer wellness is doomed to failure.
I work in the investment banking industry......one which pretty much brought the world to it's knees in the late 00s. Since then masses of international and domestic regulation has been (rightly) forced on the industry to avoid a recurrence (hopefully). Additional self policing by more ethical companies will always be well received - but stringent national / international regulation is the only real way to keep industries in check.
Betting is very highly regulated, not self-regulated!
I know mate. I was referring to Seth's post above where he appears to be asking about (I assumed additional) self regulation in the gambling industry.
I was suggesting that there probably needs to be a change of emphasis with no self regulation at all, but that that element of constraint, plus other suitable constraints that they did not have, should be imposed on the betting companies from outside.
Self regulation in most industries is worthless. Like it or not we like in a capitalist world where profit is key to business. I would suggest therefore that asking industries themselves to identify the trade-off between profit and customer wellness is doomed to failure.
I work in the investment banking industry......one which pretty much brought the world to it's knees in the late 00s. Since then masses of international and domestic regulation has been (rightly) forced on the industry to avoid a recurrence (hopefully). Additional self policing by more ethical companies will always be well received - but stringent national / international regulation is the only real way to keep industries in check.
Betting is very highly regulated, not self-regulated!
I know mate. I was referring to Seth's post above where he appears to be asking about (I assumed additional) self regulation in the gambling industry.
I was suggesting that there probably needs to be a change of emphasis with no self regulation at all, but that that element of constraint, plus other suitable constraints that they did not have, should be imposed on the betting companies from outside.
OK. As Bob states......betting is already a highly regulated industry.
So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.
I was listening to The Price of Football podcast earlier this week, and they had a professional gambler interviewed on there. His sole income is from researching, analysing betting markets and odds to make his money through winning bets.
He said that he can no longer have betting accounts in his own name now, as they’ve all caught onto the fact that he wins a lot more than he loses.
The whole thing just seems like a con (from the bookie side).
On a side note - he was also a Rochdale fan so worth tuning in to to hear their discussion around the takeover/Matt Southall.
So this is a guy who makes his sole income from gambling?
Due to the fact that a bet needs to be a commercial arrangement between two parties who are both willing to enter into the contract, there is nothing in place that dictates that the gambling business must accept your bet. This is exactly the same as any other business operating in the UK. As with commercial businesses, offers may be withdrawn whenever the company feels like it. And so too, gambling businesses may withdraw offers or refuse bets as a way of reducing the risk to their own business.
No business would enter into a contract knowing they would be selling the product or service at a loss.
Getting other people to place the bets?
This is unlawful, and also against all bookmakers terms and conditions. Not least because the operator has a legal obligation to know their customer - what would stop an adult placing bets on behalf on minors?
All valid points.
My argument would be that ethically it seems wrong to entice people with the expectation that they could ‘win big’ with all the regular tactics they deploy - to then lock the customer in emotionally and dictate the ongoing arrangements so that it was only balanced in one direction.
I understand why they do it - I just think it is morally wrong.
The only times I have gambled has been at Crayford dogs and Ladies Day at Goodwood - and at all times only a few quid - gambling has never interested me
A few years ago a bloke I played golf with sold his company and became a professional gambler (!!) - he went from someone you talk to about sport in terms of how good a football match was going to be, to someone who only saw sport through lens of the odds at the bookies - it was rather sad to be honest
The two parts of Merson’s show last night that gripped me most were:-
When he said that it is a destructive addiction that you don’t put inside you, as it’s already inside you - I hadn’t thought about it in that way
And when he met the people who had lost loved ones through suicide - the woman who lost her husband and outlined what was on his phone after he died was so sad
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
Where did I say that? Of course we do, as does any other commercial operation, but not from those identified as having a problem or potential problem, for which we spend millions on research, AI/algorithm creation and staff dedicated to just this area, and willingly lose millions more in revenue. That's 0.5% - the other 99.5% only play with money where losing would not cause them problems and we have affordability and due diligence processes to ensure where humanly possible that that is the case.
So, are those the stats @bobmunro? Of those who gamble, only 1 in 200 has a problem or potential problem?
Just asking, as I would have suspected higher.
1 in 200 has an identified problem - it could be argued that all of the other 99.5% have the potential! But in reality it is another 4.5% i.e. 5% have an identified problem or a potential to develop one.
So the key word is 'identified'. Right.
We're back to the 'falling tree in the forest' thread, aren't we? If your gambling problem is not 'identified', do you have one?
I confess that I was more interested in one line in your opening post @bobmunro ... "I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down."
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
Where did I say that? Of course we do, as does any other commercial operation, but not from those identified as having a problem or potential problem, for which we spend millions on research, AI/algorithm creation and staff dedicated to just this area, and willingly lose millions more in revenue. That's 0.5% - the other 99.5% only play with money where losing would not cause them problems and we have affordability and due diligence processes to ensure where humanly possible that that is the case.
So, are those the stats @bobmunro? Of those who gamble, only 1 in 200 has a problem or potential problem?
Just asking, as I would have suspected higher.
1 in 200 has an identified problem - it could be argued that all of the other 99.5% have the potential! But in reality it is another 4.5% i.e. 5% have an identified problem or a potential to develop one.
So the key word is 'identified'. Right.
We're back to the 'falling tree in the forest' thread, aren't we? If your gambling problem is not 'identified', do you have one?
I confess that I was more interested in one line in your opening post @bobmunro ... "I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down."
What was your fear?
Of course 'identified' (by the operator or disclosed by the customer) - it's a bit tricky to do much more than estimate any unidentified!
Fear? I laugh in the face of fear!
It was more a forlorn expectation of my comments falling on deaf ears - although that was to a great degree misplaced as many comments in response were very reasonable.
I don't think gambling companies particularly care about problem gamblers - the odd vacuous statement on TV or the radio doesn't achieve much. I imagine a lot of problem gamblers will just hide their problem.
So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
My only comment on this thread is to say that this absolutely hits the nail on the head.
Really?
The overwhelming majority of identified (by us) problem gamblers are consistent losers. We just hope to catch them early and do all we can to do so. I don't expect you to believe that - that's where the forlorn expectation comes in!
So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
My only comment on this thread is to say that this absolutely hits the nail on the head.
Really?
The overwhelming majority of identified (by us) problem gamblers are consistent losers. We just hope to catch them early and do all we can to do so. I don't expect you to believe that - that's where the forlorn expectation comes in!
Most gamblers lose consistently - boils down to what is acceptable to lose? If you got rid of the losers your business plan goes.
So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
My only comment on this thread is to say that this absolutely hits the nail on the head.
Really?
The overwhelming majority of identified (by us) problem gamblers are consistent losers. We just hope to catch them early and do all we can to do so. I don't expect you to believe that - that's where the forlorn expectation comes in!
Most gamblers lose consistently - boils down to what is acceptable to lose? If you got rid of the losers your business plan goes.
I really don't buy the level of concern.
Most gamblers lose in the long run, of course that's the business model.
The vast majority lose what they can afford to lose - yes we want them. Punters who lose more than they can afford to lose and with the consequential negative impact on their life are not punters we want.
I never said get rid of all the losers!
The level of concern is both on the human side and also from a commercial perspective in that we want a sustainable business.
I think it boils down to whether
you agree with the moral aspect of gambling or not.
The concept is pretty straight
forward and reasonable, and the risk is with the bookie and the punter,
depending on how silly the bet might be. The problem comes when you introduce
people, who all obviously have various levels of whatever it is that makes us
go back repeatedly (Excitement at one end, and possibly desperation at the
other).
As long as the industry is doing
enough to identify people with a problem, short of banning gambling completely,
I'm not sure what else can be done tbh
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
What you are effectively saying is that your firm don't try to maximise profits and encourage people to spend money and generate revenue for you.
I am afraid that is balls.
Where did I say that? Of course we do, as does any other commercial operation, but not from those identified as having a problem or potential problem, for which we spend millions on research, AI/algorithm creation and staff dedicated to just this area, and willingly lose millions more in revenue. That's 0.5% - the other 99.5% only play with money where losing would not cause them problems and we have affordability and due diligence processes to ensure where humanly possible that that is the case.
So, are those the stats @bobmunro? Of those who gamble, only 1 in 200 has a problem or potential problem?
Just asking, as I would have suspected higher.
Only 1 in 200 funnily enough are successful enough to make a consistent profit from gambling. That 0.5% diminishes, of course, once bookies close/restrict accounts so ultimately there will be a lot less successful gamblers allowed to bet than those that are allowed to do so who have issues in limiting themselves. And a minute amount are long term successful compared to those that make a meaningful profit over time.
The one thing a bookmaker is desperate to do is to keep someone who consistently loses. It doesn't have to be someone who loses masses because each customer who does so is a profit to them. The more profitable you are to them the more incentives are thrown at them. Boxes at big sporting events owned by bookies are full of failed gamblers.
What a bookie does want is their outlet to be that punter's only "shop". It's why Betfair moved from just being an Exchange to offering poker, casino and ultimately becoming hypocrites themselves by having their own sportsbook with fixed odds. Simply because they did not want their customers just betting with them on their Exchange and in the knowledge that so many of their smaller markets lacked liquidity they used the Sportsbook to provide odds accordingly.
Absolutely this, I grew up in a nice house, with a huge garden and my parents owned their own business, by the time I was 18 we lived in the Cherry Orchard and my parents had nothing, my old man had gambled EVERYTHING away.
Years after finally kicking the habit he was still getting invites to boxes for FA Finals etc, the industry is vile and anyone claiming most of these companies don’t prey on the weak and vulnerable are, imo lying.
I think the, at the moment rather vague, concept about people losing what they can afford to lose could well be rather a can of worms.
Is the attraction of gambling simply either winning or losing?
Is there a space or place that despite inevitably losing there is something attractive or fun or time killing or challenging along the way?
I suppose gambling on horses is different to the turn of a card, or where a roulette ball might land, a person can convince themselves their special savvy is rewarded.
Is that the attraction beyond either winning or losing? Well especially when being a loser is an eventual inevitability. Is there a thrill in watching a roulette ball spin?
What push points do the gambling advertisers press?
There is a campaign starring the bloke we all kind of like, Ray Winston, the bloke of blokes that goes on about we are connected, it’s sport and we make you feel up close and involved, you will be master of cutting edge technology. Young faces are seen happy, international and glamorous locations, people eating and drinking in a colourful and party kind of way.
What are the push points there?
What about the lovely blokey bloke Ray Winston striding up to the camera and saying ‘Risk your money with us, you might win, you might lose…mainly lose actually…but that’s what we are offering you, go for it! (gruff tone) but please gamble responsibly’?
Bob, you're highly respected by me/on here, so this is a genuine question, not a dig. How many of your customers (in number) have an identified problem and what do "you" do once identified?
Just in case of any misunderstanding I want to speak in very rare agreement with @Covered End that @bobmunro is a highly respected poster. One whose equilibrium I envy. I believe @bobmunro can handle challenging enquiries.
Bob, you re highly respected by me/on here, so this is a genuine question, not a dig. How many of your customers (in number) have an identified problem and what do "you" do once identified?
We have 40 million customers so although the percentage is low the actual numbers are not insignificant. The actual numbers I do not know off the top of my head - I'm just an HR bod!
What do we do? Various trigger points are set that equate to specified actions on our part. The customer is directed to a number of external independent agencies for advice and support - and ultimately the account is closed.
I know someone who has lost thousands on online slots with various companies and only one has limited them to being only allowed to deposit £100 a month and that was BET365. Also the the National Lottery stopped them using the account for eight weeks and only now allows them to play £20 a week on all there games and the lottery. They have had therapy and various options closed to them but still carry on. I've had a brother in law drink himself to death leaving a wife and four kids, he knew what he was doing and happily carried on. He had a liver transplant and was clean for six months plus therapy but said to me a few days before he died I'd rather drink! People really have to look at themselves instead of trying to blame everyone and everything else. Companies from all walks of life use advertising or other things to gain your money and business its your choice. I suffer severe mental health issues that affect my everyday life and my family caused by things that have happened to me in my past but I only blame myself for not being able to deal with it and cope.
Bob, you re highly respected by me/on here, so this is a genuine question, not a dig. How many of your customers (in number) have an identified problem and what do "you" do once identified?
We have 40 million customers so although the percentage is low the actual numbers are not insignificant. The actual numbers I do not know off the top of my head - I'm just an HR bod!
What do we do? Various trigger points are set that equate to specified actions on our part. The customer is directed to a number of external independent agencies for advice and support - and ultimately the account is closed.
Surely the ethical thing to do would be to close the account as soon as the problem is identified, rather than rinse them for a while longer?
So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.
I was listening to The Price of Football podcast earlier this week, and they had a professional gambler interviewed on there. His sole income is from researching, analysing betting markets and odds to make his money through winning bets.
He said that he can no longer have betting accounts in his own name now, as they’ve all caught onto the fact that he wins a lot more than he loses.
The whole thing just seems like a con (from the bookie side).
On a side note - he was also a Rochdale fan so worth tuning in to to hear their discussion around the takeover/Matt Southall.
So this is a guy who makes his sole income from gambling?
Due to the fact that a bet needs to be a commercial arrangement between two parties who are both willing to enter into the contract, there is nothing in place that dictates that the gambling business must accept your bet. This is exactly the same as any other business operating in the UK. As with commercial businesses, offers may be withdrawn whenever the company feels like it. And so too, gambling businesses may withdraw offers or refuse bets as a way of reducing the risk to their own business.
No business would enter into a contract knowing they would be selling the product or service at a loss.
Getting other people to place the bets?
This is unlawful, and also against all bookmakers terms and conditions. Not least because the operator has a legal obligation to know their customer - what would stop an adult placing bets on behalf on minors?
All valid points.
My argument would be that ethically it seems wrong to entice people with the expectation that they could ‘win big’ with all the regular tactics they deploy - to then lock the customer in emotionally and dictate the ongoing arrangements so that it was only balanced in one direction.
I understand why they do it - I just think it is morally wrong.
Completely agree with this - I understand why they do it, but the limiting/essentially stopping of people who might win money off them by the bookies sticks in the craw given that effectively the whole point of gambling is you may win, the bookie may win etc.
So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.
Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.
You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.
I was listening to The Price of Football podcast earlier this week, and they had a professional gambler interviewed on there. His sole income is from researching, analysing betting markets and odds to make his money through winning bets.
He said that he can no longer have betting accounts in his own name now, as they’ve all caught onto the fact that he wins a lot more than he loses.
The whole thing just seems like a con (from the bookie side).
On a side note - he was also a Rochdale fan so worth tuning in to to hear their discussion around the takeover/Matt Southall.
Admittedly his bets will obviously depend on what odds he can get and where, but why can't he just use an exchange like Betfair? I imagine most if not all professional gamblers use that for the very reason highlighted.
There's a reason these companies make so much money. There's a reason why there are so many different companies all trying to get a slice of the action. There's a reason why they all spend so much on advertising.
As it said on the programme, unlike your local bookie in the past, these companies have access to data which can indicate whether someone has a problem or not. But they use it to target customers with offers and promotions knowing exactly what buttons to push.
What chance has your vulnerable average Joe got against a huge corporate spending millions a year to know exactly how to extract money from you?
I'm not anti-betting, far from it. But this sort of thing has been going on for a while now and something needs to change.
I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down. I will however comment on the bit I've highlighted and then crawl back under my rock.
Yes, like any account based activity (bank, credit card, Amazon, Facebook et al) the operator has data by the bucket load. If an operator is using that data to prey on customers who are showing signs of problem gambling then they are in breach of the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice as dictated by the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission. I cannot comment on Ladbrokes or William Hill (well I could but I won't) who I believe were the target of the programme (I only caught the last 15 minutes) but I can categorically state (and stake my reputation) that we invest vast sums of money by analysing that data, with very, very complex machine learning, in trying all we can to identify problem gamblers at the earliest opportunity and then take whatever action we can to protect them. We have very large teams dedicated to doing just that.
Now where's that rock?
I also work in the gambling industry and for a responsible gambling department and as Bob said if this was to happen the gambling commission would revoke your license with immediate effect. We have hundreds of processes and algorithms which use the data for exactly the opposite of what is being suggested. Granted this wasn't always the case in years gone by but is now a mandatory requirement for anyone licensed in the UK. VIP schemes such as the ones that will have targeted Merse and other high rollers still exist but , source of funds and extra due diligence will have been checked thoroughly before anything is offered, Im going to find that rock now also!
I was going to ask about VIP schemes. Surely these shouldn't be allowed to exist, I mean bookies aren't going to be offering lovely perks to customers who consistently cost them money.
Yes it’s been direction that gambling commission has been driving towards for some time , there is narrative now most incentive based VIP schemes where you get luxury items or cash rewards as a direct incentive for spending huge chunks of cash have been replaced by more loyalty offerings more similar to a Tesco club card for example where you are encouraged to only gamble what you can afford and rewards will come naturally based on that activity.
Comments
He said that he can no longer have betting accounts in his own name now, as they’ve all caught onto the fact that he wins a lot more than he loses.
The whole thing just seems like a con (from the bookie side).
On a side note - he was also a Rochdale fan so worth tuning in to to hear their discussion around the takeover/Matt Southall.
Due to the fact that a bet needs to be a commercial arrangement between two parties who are both willing to enter into the contract, there is nothing in place that dictates that the gambling business must accept your bet. This is exactly the same as any other business operating in the UK. As with commercial businesses, offers may be withdrawn whenever the company feels like it. And so too, gambling businesses may withdraw offers or refuse bets as a way of reducing the risk to their own business.
No business would enter into a contract knowing they would be selling the product or service at a loss.
Getting other people to place the bets?
This is unlawful, and also against all bookmakers terms and conditions. Not least because the operator has a legal obligation to know their customer - what would stop an adult placing bets on behalf on minors?
I understand why they do it - I just think it is morally wrong.
A few years ago a bloke I played golf with sold his company and became a professional gambler (!!) - he went from someone you talk to about sport in terms of how good a football match was going to be, to someone who only saw sport through lens of the odds at the bookies - it was rather sad to be honest
The two parts of Merson’s show last night that gripped me most were:-
When he said that it is a destructive addiction that you don’t put inside you, as it’s already inside you - I hadn’t thought about it in that way
And when he met the people who had lost loved ones through suicide - the woman who lost her husband and outlined what was on his phone after he died was so sad
So the key word is 'identified'. Right.
We're back to the 'falling tree in the forest' thread, aren't we? If your gambling problem is not 'identified', do you have one?
I confess that I was more interested in one line in your opening post @bobmunro ... "I was going to avoid comment on this thread, knowing that I would almost certainly be shot down."
What was your fear?
Fear? I laugh in the face of fear!
It was more a forlorn expectation of my comments falling on deaf ears - although that was to a great degree misplaced as many comments in response were very reasonable.
The overwhelming majority of identified (by us) problem gamblers are consistent losers. We just hope to catch them early and do all we can to do so. I don't expect you to believe that - that's where the forlorn expectation comes in!
I really don't buy the level of concern.
The vast majority lose what they can afford to lose - yes we want them. Punters who lose more than they can afford to lose and with the consequential negative impact on their life are not punters we want.
I never said get rid of all the losers!
The level of concern is both on the human side and also from a commercial perspective in that we want a sustainable business.
I think it boils down to whether you agree with the moral aspect of gambling or not.
The concept is pretty straight forward and reasonable, and the risk is with the bookie and the punter, depending on how silly the bet might be. The problem comes when you introduce people, who all obviously have various levels of whatever it is that makes us go back repeatedly (Excitement at one end, and possibly desperation at the other).
As long as the industry is doing enough to identify people with a problem, short of banning gambling completely, I'm not sure what else can be done tbh
Years after finally kicking the habit he was still getting invites to boxes for FA Finals etc, the industry is vile and anyone claiming most of these companies don’t prey on the weak and vulnerable are, imo lying.
Is the attraction of gambling simply either winning or losing?
Is there a space or place that despite inevitably losing there is something attractive or fun or time killing or challenging along the way?
I suppose gambling on horses is different to the turn of a card, or where a roulette ball might land, a person can convince themselves their special savvy is rewarded.
Is that the attraction beyond either winning or losing? Well especially when being a loser is an eventual inevitability. Is there a thrill in watching a roulette ball spin?
What push points do the gambling advertisers press?
There is a campaign starring the bloke we all kind of like, Ray Winston, the bloke of blokes that goes on about we are connected, it’s sport and we make you feel up close and involved, you will be master of cutting edge technology. Young faces are seen happy, international and glamorous locations, people eating and drinking in a colourful and party kind of way.
What are the push points there?
What about the lovely blokey bloke Ray Winston striding up to the camera and saying ‘Risk your money with us, you might win, you might lose…mainly lose actually…but that’s what we are offering you, go for it! (gruff tone) but please gamble responsibly’?
How many of your customers (in number) have an identified problem and what do "you" do once identified?
I believe @bobmunro can handle challenging enquiries.
What do we do? Various trigger points are set that equate to specified actions on our part. The customer is directed to a number of external independent agencies for advice and support - and ultimately the account is closed.