The nanny state is attempting to curb gambling by making bookmakers etc carry out affordability checks on people’s finances before they are allowed to gamble. The racing post has started a petition against this proposal so if you like a flutter or two this may affect you .Bet responsibly .
0
Comments
Can we have the affordability checks across the board though.
Got no problem with the goverment telling me I can only bet so much a week/month.
But if I want to pay for a £5000 holiday do affordability checks on that aswell.
Some background: the plan as envisaged is that an initial level of “unintrusive” financial vulnerability checks will be triggered when a punter has a net loss of £125 within a rolling 30-day period, or £500 over a rolling 365-day period. The checks would use publicly available information such as bankruptcy orders, or a significant history of unpaid debts.
Further checks will then be triggered by losses of £1,000 within a 24-hour period or £2,000 within a 90-day period. An important point to remember is that winnings outside the previous seven days (for the former trigger) and outside the previous 90 days (for the latter) will not be taken into consideration when calculating net loss.
So as I read more about punters who are losing being identified and challenged/checked
Not sure it’s wrong and may help some who otherwise end up losing more than they can afford
Looks to me to be an extra hurdle which may stop some getting in too deep
it’s to save you from yourself and you cannot spend your own money as you like.
a slippery slope maybe… when you buy your fifth pint in future the publican may have to check you can afford it and the kids are not starving at home
As it’s currently proposed, I do not think affordability checks will help identify problem gamblers and only serve to aggravate the majority of punters who are able to have a bet safely.
Come to one of my local Armchairs Anonymous meetings and you might change your mind. 😞
Not sure it's the point you wanted to put across, but if kids are starving then it's absolutely the right thing.
It read as checks if you lose and trigger some thresholds. Not for starting out I don't think.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/04/talking-horses-affordability-checks-betting-gaming-gambling-commission
I think it's right in certain circumstances checks are carried out. Although I assume the majority of this is online rather than at the track or in a high street bookmakers as I'm not sure how you would police someone betting in various shops in a day. But equally that could apply to someone with numerous online accounts.
It's good in my view that it's being looked at, as to the plan being sufficient, workable etc I don't know.
How many people commit suicide over debt a year?
The leading cause of death in the UK is Dementia, doesn't mean you do nothing for any other illnesses that may cause death.
Stick with me on this imaginary scenario…
Imagine a bookmaker comes out with a brand new heads or tails game that can only be played once per day and if you win you get the perfect 1/1 payout with no bookie overround.
A punter with no history of gambling addiction and enjoys flipping coins signs up and wants to bet £50 per day on heads. The first three days all land tails. You’ve exhausted your 30 day limit in three days.
Meanwhile, statistics tells us that there’s a high probability that in a 30 day rolling period, you’ll see 15 of each outcome and have lost no money.
All the loss limiting legislation will have done is cost the punter £150 with no opportunity for variance to take effect, ready for them to repeat the same process the following month.
As I said, this will catch a significant number of legitimate punters who enjoy a bet but don’t have a problem. And the real problem gamblers won’t be sufficiently identified as they’ll be lost in the crowd.
Why will it stop anyone who enjoys a bet? As I understand it, it's just an affordability check, not a flat 'you've lost x, that's it for the day/week/month' etc.
There's an entirely separate issue of bookmakers blocking withdrawals under the guise of affordability checks which has to stop too. The game is already stacked in favour of the bookmakers, IMO the purpose of reforms should be finding ways to level the playing field through regulating their practices instead of restricting consumers.