Gambling sponsorship ban?

jam69 said:
As these people are making a living from matched bets but not contributing anything then forgive me if I don't see them as important in the grand scheme of things, good luck to them but iam more concerned about the destruction addiction can cause
Click to expand...
Do consider the thousands employed in the industry and indirectly in its supply chains and hospitality as unimportant in the grand scheme of things? They contribute massively via national insurance, income tax and corporation tax for the small businesses owners. What about then and their families who rely on their income? How do they stand in your grand scheme?
 
Jimstewart said:
Yes people have more than one account I’ll give you that. Like any other walk of life you wouldn’t limit your custom to one provider.

They will be penalised if they are limited to the proposed £100 per month maximum loss due to the fact that it will remove the necessary turnover needed to make a profit.

Bookmakers make around 15 percent gross on turnover from horse racing. A successful matched better of which there are many will need to turnover hundreds of transactions in order to get the required return on their stakes. Matched betting isn’t even gambling as it exploits bookmaker loopholes and offers yet these people making a legitimate income will be wiped out overnight if this comes to pass.
That’s how they are being penalised.
I’ve no problem with the deposit limits and self exclusion or even a reduction in advertising but proof of income requirements will massively reduce online turnover resulting in job losses in the industry and wiping out the extra income being legitimately made by thousands of people matched betting and trading .
And the very people that need help will take there addiction to unlicensed criminals where there will be zero controls in place. It’s completely counter productive.
Click to expand...
For me you've got to protect the weak and the vulnerable which is far more important than allowing a minority to profit from a scheme which seems far to good to be true to be honest. Presumably you pay no tax on these "earnings" from matched betting
 
Jimstewart said:
Do consider the thousands employed in the industry and indirectly in its supply chains and hospitality as unimportant in the grand scheme of things? They contribute massively via national insurance, income tax and corporation tax for the small businesses owners. What about then and their families who rely on their income? How do they stand in your grand scheme?
Click to expand...
Did he say ban betting completely, close down all the betting shops and horse race courses etc etc.

No of course he didn't but you don't see that.
 
Last edited:
Jimstewart said:
Do consider the thousands employed in the industry and indirectly in its supply chains and hospitality as unimportant in the grand scheme of things? They contribute massively via national insurance, income tax and corporation tax for the small businesses owners. What about then and their families who rely on their income? How do they stand in your grand scheme?
Click to expand...
I would imagine the majority of punters who bet responsible wouldn't be affected that much and as above it might move trade to the high Street shops rather than offshore based gambling companies paying little or no tax ,?
 
jam69 said:
As these people are making a living from matched bets but not contributing anything then forgive me if I don't see them as important in the grand scheme of things, good luck to them but iam more concerned about the destruction addiction can cause
Click to expand...
The matched bettors that you consider unimportant would have, in times gone by, have paid betting tax levied at ten percent on their turnover but the Labour government scrapped it and moved to a 15 percent gross profits tax on bookmaker profits as I said to you earlier on . So the contributions flow from the punter to the layer and are collected by the treasury and the threshold has been raised to 21 percent for online operators.
 
jam69 said:
I would imagine the majority of punters who bet responsible wouldn't be affected that much and as above it might move trade to the high Street shops rather than offshore based gambling companies paying little or no tax ,?
Click to expand...
jam69 said:
I would imagine the majority of punters who bet responsible wouldn't be affected that much and as above it might move trade to the high Street shops rather than offshore based gambling companies paying little or no tax ,?
Click to expand...
All matched bettors would be wiped out but I now understand they are not important. It may move turnover back to the high street but again it’s counter productive for problem gamblers as it is harder for the bookmaker to control the punter than online. Instead of a problem gamblers having a deposit limit interfaced between online operators which I think is a good idea he could go on tilt and simply walk around multiple shops. There are plenty to chose from.
 
Jimstewart said:
Yes? It’s a global pandemic. Please let’s not equate that to having a bet too far. Over and out this place has lost its marbles.
Click to expand...
I'm not.

You said less than 1% of 33m people that actively gamble have gambling problems. ie not that big of an issue & so no further protections needed
I said less than 1% of a 33m population is actually lot of people, ie if we look at the pandemic

So while the proportion of active gamblers with gambling issues is low, as gambling is endemic in our culture there are large numbers of people with a gambling problem.
Therefore something should be done to protect them.
 
newusername said:
I'm not.

You said less than 1% of 33m people that actively gamble have gambling problems. ie not that big of an issue & so no further protections needed
I said less than 1% of a 33m population is actually lot of people, ie if we look at the pandemic

So while the proportion of active gamblers with gambling issues is low, as gambling is endemic in our culture there are large numbers of people with a gambling problem.
Therefore something should be done to protect them.
Click to expand...
Like deposit limits? Self exclusion? Access to gamcare? Access GA? Access to be gamble aware? Ban on credit card transactions? All of these are in place. Reduce the advertising , have a million more campaigns like when the fun stops stop . Fine. But to limit punter turnover will have the opposite effect of helping addicts. It will put them in places were the last thing that will be available is help.
 
Jimstewart said:
Like deposit limits? Self exclusion? Access to gamcare? Access GA? Access to be gamble aware? Ban on credit card transactions? All of these are in place. Reduce the advertising , have a million more campaigns like when the fun stops stop . Fine. But to limit punter turnover will have the opposite effect of helping addicts. It will put them in places were the last thing that will be available is help.
Click to expand...
All those & more.

I'd reduce the frequency with which bets can be placed as well.
I'd also want to limit people's particularly children's exposure to "gambling-lite" of things like in-game purchases of chances to win things like EA Sports Player Packs, mobile gaming gems etc.
 
Having said what I don’t think should happen this is what I think would be a happy medium.
Every punter I’ve ever met that have got themselves into bother have one thing in common , they chase losses. That is they increase stakes after a loser in an attempt to recoup past losses.

The way to stop that is to introduce a maximum stake for the individual rather than fixate on monthly losses. I would put a maximum stake of 5 percent of available balance so a £500 balance gives you a maximum stake of £25. That way you can’t chase and are always betting within means.

Reduce advertising. I’m sick of the sight of Ray Winston and Kammy anyway.

Impose maximum stakes on casino games as they have already done with the fixed odds betting terminals in the shops (£2). It is impossible to beat a house edge in these games and the punter has virtually no chance unless he gets very lucky. Sports betting is different as judgement can be used and loopholes exploited.

Increase the likes of the coral connect card to be industry wide in the shops so that firms can keep tabs on staking and betting patterns and weed out problem punters. (The only downside to this is it also alerts them to winning punters as well who will then become severely restricted).

Lastly use some common sense and have people on both sides of the argument that actually know the Industry, how it works and who it effects because if some of the posts on here are indicative of the public’s knowledge on the subject then God help us and those that are employed in the industry.
 
newusername said:
All those & more.

I'd reduce the frequency with which bets can be placed as well.
I'd also want to limit people's particularly children's exposure to "gambling-lite" of things like in-game purchases of chances to win things like EA Sports Player Packs, mobile gaming gems etc.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with all apart from the frequency. Time out options are already in place.
 
Jimstewart said:
It already is legislated and controlled by the gambling act of 2005 and has a commission that oversees it. It’s called the gambling commission and it’s currently under review by Ms Harris and her chums to see if she can have a little bit more control over it .
Click to expand...
Good.
 
Jim - I know I said I was dipping out, I'm not trying to pick a fight or imply anything, and I'm saying this with all due respect, but your defence of gambling to the extent you are doing is really worrying - others will be closer to the issue than me, but in my work I come across many instances of addiction (in the widest sense, and a mental health context) and one common theme is the denial that there's a problem, either personally or the with system that enables that addiction.

Could I just ask that you take a step back and consider where you are with this

As I said, not mentioned to get a bite or provoke a continuation of the argument, and with the best intentions
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
Who's a homophobic bully?
Click to expand...
Carolyn Harris . Read Labour councillor Paulette Smiths testimony to Cardiff crown court about the treatment of gay employee Jenny Clarke in 2018.
It’s got nothing to do with this thread and I probably shouldn’t have mentioned it. I’d just rather be bossed about by a nicer person than her to be honest.
 
Malaguena said:
Jim - I know I said I was dipping out, I'm not trying to pick a fight or imply anything, and I'm saying this with all due respect, but your defence of gambling to the extent you are doing is really worrying - others will be closer to the issue than me, but in my work I come across many instances of addiction (in the widest sense, and a mental health context) and one common theme is the denial that there's a problem, either personally or the with system that enables that addiction.

Could I just ask that you take a step back and consider where you are with this

As I said, not mentioned to get a bite or provoke a continuation of the argument, and with the best intentions
Click to expand...
Yep fair enough. I’ll address your points and I’ll be on my way.
My worrying defence of gambling - I’ve been involved one way or another with gambling for over thirty years. I have no vested interest on behalf of bookmakers I’m a punter and matched bettor. In a post above I put forward the controls that I would implement based on my experience of punters both good and bad and how to limit any damage whilst not overly infringing on free will. The most important of these I feel is maximum stakes of £2 on casino games as already implemented on high street FOBTs. Also a maximum stake on sports bets at 1/20th of available balance.

Your work with people suffering addiction- I have lost one dear family member and one close friend to alcohol. The latter also crossed over into mental illness so I’m fully aware of the perils of addiction. I would not however seek to implement draconian measures on drinkers, I’m one myself, because I see it as unfair to penalise people that can drink socially without falling To alcoholism. I apply the same logic to gambling.

As a footnote we have had some comments on here, well meaning though I’m sure they are, that highlight just how ill informed some people are on the subject.
We have people saying there’s a lack of tax contributions despite them being abolished by the Labour Party on the punter side 20 years ago and collected from the books via a gross profits tax at 15 percent raised to 21 percent for online.
We have a widespread condemnation of the industry and even one poster saying he wish it could be banned altogether despite it supporting tens of thousands of jobs both directly and indirectly. It has also put in place deposit limits and the option to self exclude. These will not be there on the dark side.
We have a poster somewhere or other saying matched betting seems to good to be true despite thousands of people successfully using it for over 15 years to both provide and supplement incomes.
We have one poster completely ignorant of the mechanisms of the market and how the bookmakers frame an over round on each participant in sports markets in order to gain a margin. But I suppose all are entitled to there opinion no matter how little grasp they have of the subject.
So that’s that I’ll be off and hope common sense prevails because take away the big boys with the licences and you will find a lot of vulnerable people moving on to the sharks without.
I’m off to study tonight’s card at Newcastle.
 
It should never of been allowed in the first place , I’d personally ban any reference to the evil ‘pastime’ on every possible platform
 
I find gamblers a pain. Impossible having a convo when they are on the blower perusing over multiple bets and occasionally chuckling "yay, I have just made £30.00, Just need Stoke to win and Brighton to lose....yay"

Boring chunts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top