UKGC's proposed £100 a month loss limit, will it affect you?

[Desert Orchid]

It never sat well with me seeing people do their brains, more so when I worked in the shops and it was right in front of me.

Yes, during one of my spells working in a bookie's during the student holidays I was called in behind the counter one weekend (from my boardmarking duties - "You're awfy guid at yon markin', son, keep gaun an' ye'll go places"said one old timer) and on the Friday - Clydebank Fair Friday, so the guys were teeming out of the Clydeside shipyards with their holiday pay bulging in their pockets - and some these guys I knew as 50p/25p ew punters. Suddenly they were throwing fivers and tenners at unnamed favourites.

I was aghast, to the point I said to the manager, "Can you not do something to discourage these guys from throwing away their money? Their wives and kids are waiting for them to go to Blackpool or Butlins or somewhere!"

He replied, "You must be jokin', mate. This is my biggest day of the year for takings. I'll be getting a nice bonus for this."

 

[Maruco]

This just isn't the way to solve problem gambling is it. A one size fits all approach just can't work. If they do this they'll kill the industry, and with it horse racing would have a very large problem that it prbably couldn't recover from.

I'd be fairly sure there are several of us on here that deal in fairly substantial numbers each year, that include loss making weeks and months, but overall make a considerable amount of money across a year. Are we problem gamblers? The only problem we have is keeping accounts open and finding family and friends to replace them with. We're a problem to bookmakers, not ourselves or our families.

The problem is, under this kind of scrutiny we'd be flagged permamently with no chance of getting anything worthwhile on through any method.

Now don't get me wrong. This isn't one-sided. The degenerate that sits in the bookie pissing away money on machines, or chases losses needs stopping. Find me a bookie anywhere that doesn't feed them tea and biscuits and take every last penny at the same time. But this plan doen't stop them. They've got to be identified, and then if they are they just walk 100 yards up the high street to the next bookie.

An answer needs finding for those that can't help themselves, but this idiotic idea isn't it.

 

[reet hard]

Storm in a teacup, imo; where vested interests have pulled the lowest rational figure from thin air, and gone into overdrive on that pretext, in much the same manner the bookies do, about any threat to their cash cow. If it ever does come about, the bar will be set suitably higher, for the government, and others, with their noses in the trough.

 

[Grasshopper]

Suspect there’s a lot of truth in that, reet.

 

[dvds2000]

Storm in a teacup, imo; where vested interests have pulled the lowest rational figure from thin air, and gone into overdrive on that pretext, in much the same manner the bookies do, about any threat to their cash cow. If it ever does come about, the bar will be set suitably higher, for the government, and others, with their noses in the trough.

Having seen changes to the casino side of the industry over the past 2-3 years, and knowing what happened previous to the changes, I would say this is certainly more than 50/50 of being what will happen. The UKGC have a history of doing some weird things. Like yesterday announced autospin on slots will be banned, as it allows customers to lose track of how many spins they have done. So you can set 100 spins (with a loss limit) to play without you clicking start. Or you can click start every spin. I'm sorry but which way is easier to tell when you have done 100? You counting up in your head, or the game stopping saying 'you have reached 100 spins, autoplay ended'.

 

[barjon]

Mmm, there are plenty of problems in this world because people are unable to control themselves, but it does not seem right to restrict the activities of the vast majority who do control themselves as a means of helping those who can’t. Particularly since the proposals are not actually dealing with the underlying problem - an uncontrollable compulsion to gamble. Somewhat hypocritically, it’s deemed ok to have such a disorder as long as you can afford it.

In any event, is it right (or even effective) to try and limit people’s ability to pay for their problem activity as the solution? Alcoholism is a problem, but it’s no solution to legislate that people cannot spend more than £100 a month on buying booze. The result of that would be that the law abiding citizens might restrict their purchases, but the alcoholics would find a way around it.

 

[an capall]

I agree fully with owning personal responsibility, Barjon, but also take the view that Governments should legislate for the greater good of as many possible in society and of course balance this with cultural norms and established ways of life. The problem is that the 'vast' in your assertion is likely to become a lot less vast in coming generations if the current recruitment tools of big gambling continue. (You'll also note that 'big alcohol' is restricted heavily in terms of advertising, sponsorship, sales rules relative to the past, so that is not an ad hoc supply industry.)

I'd much prefer if they focussed on the pernicious marketing side and leave maximums alone. Bet365, for instance, made £758M profit on sales of £3Bn in 2019 and Flutter are at about the same scale. Maybe we as a society should say, that sounds just about enough money for now and then restrict advertising (which is almost like drug dealing the way it's done) and/or use this year as a baseline and heavily levy growth on future sales increases.

If alcohol was as new as on line gambling it would never have been legalised.

 

[Grasshopper]

Are there any figures available for what percentage of gamblers are considered delinquent/degenerate/putting themselves in financial strife?

I wonder if this isn’t a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach.

I’ve been punting horses for 30 years, and in all my time, I don’t know a single person who would fall into one of the above brackets. The percentage of people this is intended to protect, must surely be very low indeed?

 

[wilsonl]

I’ve been punting horses for 30 years, and in all my time, I don’t know a single person who would fall into one of the above brackets. The percentage of people this is intended to protect, must surely be very low indeed?

"As they say in poker, If you've been in the game 30 minutes and don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy"

Warren Buffet (amongst others) :lol:

 

[reet hard]

Are there any figures available for what percentage of gamblers are considered delinquent/degenerate/putting themselves in financial strife?

I wonder if this isn’t a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach.

I’ve been punting horses for 30 years, and in all my time, I don’t know a single person who would fall into one of the above brackets. The percentage of people this is intended to protect, must surely be very low indeed?

Thnk I read, somewhere in the blurbs that 2 million are prone to this; probably significantly lower than allcoholics or drug users.
i

 

[Grasshopper]

"As they say in poker, If you've been in the game 30 minutes and don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy":lol:

Warren Buffet (amongst others) :lol:

:lol:

 

[Grasshopper]

Thnk I read, somewhere in the blurbs that 2 million are prone to this; probably significantly lower than allcoholics or drug users.
i

That’s a lot higher than I imagined.

How many regular gamblers are out there? Maybe 10 million? If so, that would be 20% outting themselves in the toilet. Seems high, but could be accurate, I guess.

 

[dvds2000]

Are there any figures available for what percentage of gamblers are considered delinquent/degenerate/putting themselves in financial strife?

I wonder if this isn’t a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach.

I’ve been punting horses for 30 years, and in all my time, I don’t know a single person who would fall into one of the above brackets. The percentage of people this is intended to protect, must surely be very low indeed?

50000 people signed up to Gamstop in the first 9 months, but bear in mind that would likely be a lot higher than the next 9 months, with it being a new service that a lot would have signed up to straight away. I can't find any more recent figures

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46830810

 

[Grey]

Some forms of gambling are much more addictive than others. Horse racing would not be top of the scale in this regard, and I also doubt Bet365 are making 25% profit on this part of their operation.

I agree with Mr Capall about the advertising side of things. The ad spurring young men to 'back their hunch' is pure evil.

 

[archie]

Agree about the advertising.

Other than that I'd have a completely separated process for casino games and spread betting. This is where you can lose a lot of money very quickly and where most of the safeguards are needed.

'Traditional' gambling on sports results seems reasonably well protected by the current regulations. As someone who bets to small stakes, the scale of loss restriction is less important to me than the principle of allowing access to my financial affairs. In answering the questionnaire, I said that it would not be acceptable and I'd probably give up internet betting entirely if it was introduced.

 

[Len Madeiros]

As someone very new to online betting (it’s the only way I can bet on a Saturday), I must admit I don’t even blink at losing £20, or sticking a tenner straight back on a horse, if I’ve won a bit of money. There is a clear detachment between betting and the fear of losing money, for me, a detachment that doesn’t exist when I’m in a bookies betting cash. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see that online bookies are doing very well at the moment. Losing money has never felt so painless.

 

[Len Madeiros]

And I should add, I’m probably the archetypal “losing punter in a bookies, who sometimes gets lucky”. I’m now the typical “losing punter who loses to an online bookie, etc - but loses slightly more money”. That’s how they’re making their extra money.