Obviously there has been much debate and coverage thereof in the racing press this week. I have to admit I've not really read through a lot of the detailed discussion (living in Germany I am not really affected as I use a German online bookmaker with no affordability checks - but with crap prices and 10% betting tax on your stake - so swings and roundabouts) but it seems a very heated debate. For the once a year punter who likes a bet at Cheltenham or Aintree it makes things more difficult and for regular punters it seems you are being asked to provide a level of personal information which feels very intrusive. Whilst the reason for the legislation is understood, it begs the question of whether it is right to jeopardise the future of an entire sport because a small number of people can't control their gambling addiction. There must be a better solution out there? Like banning FOBTs? Training betting shop staff to recognise "problem gamblers" and take action? Any views from Forum members?
It’s a tough one @OddDog , the devil will be in the detail. Currently I don’t have issues getting bets on at my stake level, and I’d be surprised to see this change with checks on my income. However the biggest issue for me is the excuse bookmakers are making for restricting and refusing custom. They are using the tag “affordability checks” as part of this, and I don’t think that’s truly what the politicians are wanting. I’d like a full and frank review of bookmakers and the betting and gambling industries, with some outcomes based on making betting more even for punters and bookmakers. I’d also support the removal of gambling (casino etc) from bookmakers sites and FOBTs too. Those aren’t betting, there’s no skill involved and I’d suggest they are probably more damaging than betting on sport and other events.
Yeah I also think the advertising of bookmakers needs looking at and possibly restricting (akin to the ban on tobacco advertising). All these "Free Bet" or "money back" offers usually require a certain amount of turnover on your account before they activate or pay out and they are clearly just there to suck in punters. Also the additional places nonsense - sneaked in whilst quietly changing place terms from 1/4 to 1/5 the odds which is crap for punters (just looking at oddschecker for the Pertemps final and most firms are 5 places 1/5 odds, only Coral, Boylesport and Ladbrokes go 1/4 the odds but then only 4 places). Is there actual data around how many "problem punters" have got into a mess and what their downfall has been? It would be interesting to understand root cause and tackle that. I think the advent of online betting has played a big part - it is certainly the reason I gave up betting regularly many years ago. For me it was just way too easy to bet money with the click of a button. I started analysing my betting using a simple excel spreadsheet and whilst I made a minimal profit over 12 months (I think it was just shy of 500 quid) I was shocked to realise that my total staked during the 12 months was approaching 4 grand. That scared the hell out of me and I resolved to only bet at the Cheltenham festival going forward.
Haven't seen anything lately (thank goodness). This was discussed a while back on Discuss Anything Thread, Started by me with a very blunt view on the subject. View still applies and I think one or two others thought along the same lines (eg intrusive). Why pick on people who have a bet, as opposed to those who spend just as much, or more, on other non essentials (eg cigarettes and drinking). Maybe 'how to budget properly' should be introduced into the education curriculum So what if the bookie refuses a £50 bet having done afoordability checks. The would be better can freely spend that £50 somewhere else. Where does it end The Government just want to be seen doing something but, as usual, haven't a clue
