| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... 16:46 - May 27 with 11718 views | Zx1988 |
Only the f**king CEO of Sky Betting and Gaming.
Shameful. [Post edited 27 May 2023 17:04]
|  |
| |  |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 17:39 - May 28 with 1288 views | Lord_Lucan |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 17:36 - May 28 by NeedhamChris |
Well I'd like to stop you being able to bet £150 on a horse but you know that already haha. But I get what you mean, the ideal balance is one that protects the vulnerable whilst also protecting your right to play.
What do you think of forcing online betting companies to have profit and loss amounts as prominently as an account balance? |
I don't get betting at all....
.....but what gets my goat more than anything is that consistent winners get banned! |  |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 18:16 - May 28 with 1240 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Betting on sports is illegal in many US states, and they’ve got virtually no social problems… | | | |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 18:20 - May 28 with 1235 views | J2BLUE |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 17:36 - May 28 by NeedhamChris |
Well I'd like to stop you being able to bet £150 on a horse but you know that already haha. But I get what you mean, the ideal balance is one that protects the vulnerable whilst also protecting your right to play.
What do you think of forcing online betting companies to have profit and loss amounts as prominently as an account balance? |
Well I'd like to stop you being able to bet £150 on a horse
Why?
What do you think of forcing online betting companies to have profit and loss amounts as prominently as an account balance?
The bookies will never go for this. They already ban winners. I have loads of accounts restricted to tiny amounts. So you would basically be asking them to restrict losers. They will never do that. [Post edited 28 May 2023 18:22]
|  |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 18:21 - May 28 with 1228 views | J2BLUE |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 17:39 - May 28 by Lord_Lucan |
I don't get betting at all....
.....but what gets my goat more than anything is that consistent winners get banned! |
The winners getting banned thing is a joke. I have accounts where they literally won't take a 10p bet from me and many others where they restrict me to under £1. | |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 18:30 - May 28 with 1191 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 17:39 - May 28 by Lord_Lucan |
I don't get betting at all....
.....but what gets my goat more than anything is that consistent winners get banned! |
I totally agree.
There’s plenty of sites I can’t bet on dogs at all. A couple I’m restricted to on all sports to less than £2. It really is a shambles. |  |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 08:00 - May 31 with 1024 views | StokieBlue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 17:31 - May 27 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
I didn’t actually. I believe Lucan posted a thread after we were speaking off here but that was good enough for you to go on a tangent about it on a thread months later. |
This isn't what happened. Lucan said you were in Qatar but didn't mention how you got there or that you were only there for 12 hours. You volunteered all that information yourself:
SB |  |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:06 - May 31 with 983 views | unbelievablue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 17:11 - May 27 by J2BLUE |
The same thing happened with representatives from Carabao at the cup final. I doubt most people noticed.
I suspect this was posted because anything anti gambling goes down well on here and you thought you would have 5 up votes by now. [Post edited 27 May 2023 17:16]
|
These companies have a lot to answer for, regardless of what one thinks of the level of personal responsibility involved. There are guidelines (and in some cases laws) around the duty of care for punters which they consistently and brazenly break. So yeah, sod the CEO of SkyBet. I'd have booed him if I were there. |  |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:16 - May 31 with 965 views | Herbivore |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:06 - May 31 by unbelievablue |
These companies have a lot to answer for, regardless of what one thinks of the level of personal responsibility involved. There are guidelines (and in some cases laws) around the duty of care for punters which they consistently and brazenly break. So yeah, sod the CEO of SkyBet. I'd have booed him if I were there. |
I am curious as to whether the pro-gambling folk who think gambling shouldn't be banned or over regulated because some people gamble problematically hold a similar view when it comes to the issue of how we deal with recreational drugs. Drugs and gambling are both known to be addictive and to cause serious issues for a percentage of people who participate in them. Should they be treated differently? My view is that both should be legal, highly regulated and the proceeds used from high levels of duty and tax used to fund proper support for those who are problem users. Just curious as to what some of the gamblers think on that. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:28 - May 31 with 946 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:16 - May 31 by Herbivore |
I am curious as to whether the pro-gambling folk who think gambling shouldn't be banned or over regulated because some people gamble problematically hold a similar view when it comes to the issue of how we deal with recreational drugs. Drugs and gambling are both known to be addictive and to cause serious issues for a percentage of people who participate in them. Should they be treated differently? My view is that both should be legal, highly regulated and the proceeds used from high levels of duty and tax used to fund proper support for those who are problem users. Just curious as to what some of the gamblers think on that. |
I agree they should be taxed and the proceeds used to treat gambling addiction- I’ve known addicts in the family and it’s incredibly destructive.
BUT unlike drugs, gambling addiction is largely a localised promblem, it’s not funding/exporting crime, murder, and war to another countries and funding terrorism. | | | |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:29 - May 31 with 944 views | StokieBlue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:28 - May 31 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
I agree they should be taxed and the proceeds used to treat gambling addiction- I’ve known addicts in the family and it’s incredibly destructive.
BUT unlike drugs, gambling addiction is largely a localised promblem, it’s not funding/exporting crime, murder, and war to another countries and funding terrorism. |
Really not sure about that last paragraph.
Gambling is a huge vector for money laundering and the proceeds of that will certainly fund all the things you've listed in some cases.
SB | |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:33 - May 31 with 940 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:16 - May 31 by Herbivore |
I am curious as to whether the pro-gambling folk who think gambling shouldn't be banned or over regulated because some people gamble problematically hold a similar view when it comes to the issue of how we deal with recreational drugs. Drugs and gambling are both known to be addictive and to cause serious issues for a percentage of people who participate in them. Should they be treated differently? My view is that both should be legal, highly regulated and the proceeds used from high levels of duty and tax used to fund proper support for those who are problem users. Just curious as to what some of the gamblers think on that. |
Seems like a good idea to me. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:35 - May 31 with 938 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:29 - May 31 by StokieBlue |
Really not sure about that last paragraph.
Gambling is a huge vector for money laundering and the proceeds of that will certainly fund all the things you've listed in some cases.
SB |
It is a regulated and controlled industry in the UK, so it is at the very least more difficult. Have you got any evidence that it’s a ‘huge’ problem? | | | |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:38 - May 31 with 935 views | J2BLUE |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:16 - May 31 by Herbivore |
I am curious as to whether the pro-gambling folk who think gambling shouldn't be banned or over regulated because some people gamble problematically hold a similar view when it comes to the issue of how we deal with recreational drugs. Drugs and gambling are both known to be addictive and to cause serious issues for a percentage of people who participate in them. Should they be treated differently? My view is that both should be legal, highly regulated and the proceeds used from high levels of duty and tax used to fund proper support for those who are problem users. Just curious as to what some of the gamblers think on that. |
I would agree entirely with that. I assume you would regulate heroin/cocaine differently to cannabis though right? Because that is all we have been saying all along with FOBTs and sports betting. Not suggesting sports betting should not be regulated or controlled but the vast majority of problems are on FOBTs or the online equivalent.
If you look back at previous threads the ‘pro-gambling’ people have been supporting much stronger measures on FOBTs/casino games.
I am all for legislation which stops someone going full tilt and losing their salary on a FOBT. While you may think that someone could easily do that on a bet as well it is much less likely. If you understand how these stories tend to go, people lose a bit, then chase, increase stakes, chase more and eventually go all in with what they have left in desperation of recovering their money. While this could happen with sports it’s much less likely. With casino games the red mist can descend and you can lose a big chunk in a short space of time. I know from experience. One night on Paddy Power I lost £500. Luckily that is all I had in the account as I would have lost more. I started doing £1 hands, lost about £10 and refused to take the loss (stupid) so I upped to £2, then £5, then £10 and finally £25 hands chasing my losses. I went to bed absolutely gutted. Partly because of the money and partly because I didn’t think it would ever get me.
Thankfully for me that loss sickened me enough that my discipline has become iron. I never play casino games unless I have the advantage (this is possible with casino offers) and even then I am very selective of the offers I complete.
I am mainly a matched bettor so I am not really gambling. I have made an estimated £30-£40k from matched betting over the last 10 years. I say this so you have full disclosure about my position. It’s not all about me and I fully support the vulnerable being protected but you can see why I don’t want the industry decimated. We could easily solve 95%+ (estimated figure but I’m very confident it’s accurate) with targeted measures on the most problematic areas.
Often on here gambling is all thrown together into one sordid area which exploits the vulnerable and is generally evil. What is it you want? Do you genuinely want to help the vast majority of those with a problem or do you want to decimate the industry to settle a score? The recent white paper would decimate the industry. I doubt it has any chance of ever being made law without being massively watered down.
Oh and again, full disclosure, I work in the industry but not directly for a bookmaker. [Post edited 31 May 2023 10:17]
| |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:39 - May 31 with 934 views | StokieBlue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:35 - May 31 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It is a regulated and controlled industry in the UK, so it is at the very least more difficult. Have you got any evidence that it’s a ‘huge’ problem? |
Perhaps the usage of "huge" was too much but it's certainly something that happens and would feed the things you highlighted weren't affected by gambling.
This happened 2 months ago:
https://news.sky.com/story/william-hill-fined-19-2m-by-uk-gambling-regulator-for
It's the second time they have been fined under AML regulations since 2018.
SB | |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:46 - May 31 with 920 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Fair enough on the retraction of huge.
In my opinion that article nicely highlights the fact that it is a regulated industry, and that insufficient controls monitored and failures are penalised! | | | |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:48 - May 31 with 919 views | unbelievablue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:38 - May 31 by J2BLUE |
I would agree entirely with that. I assume you would regulate heroin/cocaine differently to cannabis though right? Because that is all we have been saying all along with FOBTs and sports betting. Not suggesting sports betting should not be regulated or controlled but the vast majority of problems are on FOBTs or the online equivalent.
If you look back at previous threads the ‘pro-gambling’ people have been supporting much stronger measures on FOBTs/casino games.
I am all for legislation which stops someone going full tilt and losing their salary on a FOBT. While you may think that someone could easily do that on a bet as well it is much less likely. If you understand how these stories tend to go, people lose a bit, then chase, increase stakes, chase more and eventually go all in with what they have left in desperation of recovering their money. While this could happen with sports it’s much less likely. With casino games the red mist can descend and you can lose a big chunk in a short space of time. I know from experience. One night on Paddy Power I lost £500. Luckily that is all I had in the account as I would have lost more. I started doing £1 hands, lost about £10 and refused to take the loss (stupid) so I upped to £2, then £5, then £10 and finally £25 hands chasing my losses. I went to bed absolutely gutted. Partly because of the money and partly because I didn’t think it would ever get me.
Thankfully for me that loss sickened me enough that my discipline has become iron. I never play casino games unless I have the advantage (this is possible with casino offers) and even then I am very selective of the offers I complete.
I am mainly a matched bettor so I am not really gambling. I have made an estimated £30-£40k from matched betting over the last 10 years. I say this so you have full disclosure about my position. It’s not all about me and I fully support the vulnerable being protected but you can see why I don’t want the industry decimated. We could easily solve 95%+ (estimated figure but I’m very confident it’s accurate) with targeted measures on the most problematic areas.
Often on here gambling is all thrown together into one sordid area which exploits the vulnerable and is generally evil. What is it you want? Do you genuinely want to help the vast majority of those with a problem or do you want to decimate the industry to settle a score? The recent white paper would decimate the industry. I doubt it has any chance of ever being made law without being massively watered down.
Oh and again, full disclosure, I work in the industry but not directly for a bookmaker. [Post edited 31 May 2023 10:17]
|
This is a very balanced post, especially considering your position. Kudos.
I don't think the White Paper was really ever that realistic. It is a good example of the tactic of asking for wholesale change and then settling for less. A dangerous tactic as it may p!ss sufficient people off that it gets disregarded altogether, but hopefully not. It would be good to see things move in the right direction. | |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:58 - May 31 with 903 views | yorkshireblue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 18:21 - May 28 by J2BLUE |
The winners getting banned thing is a joke. I have accounts where they literally won't take a 10p bet from me and many others where they restrict me to under £1. |
After Saudi Arabia beat Argentina in the World Cup, thier odds shot up. Oddschecker told me Bet365 had the best odds, so I created an account stuck a bet on and obviously it paid out and I made a decent amount.
I'm now restricted to £1.50 max bet on that particuarly platform after just one bet. |  | | |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:07 - May 31 with 892 views | baxterbasics |
I lean libertarian and am generally against government banning things that people can make an informed choice about.
On the other hand, the saturation of gambling in football is clear and it's weird to me that smoking, alcohol and even sugar are considered vices worth keeping out of sport, but gambling gets the all clear. |  |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:16 - May 31 with 881 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:29 - May 31 by StokieBlue |
Really not sure about that last paragraph.
Gambling is a huge vector for money laundering and the proceeds of that will certainly fund all the things you've listed in some cases.
SB |
There are a lot of things done to prevent money laundering though. Can’t pay out someone on card unless it’s a card bet originally etc | |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:21 - May 31 with 867 views | J2BLUE |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:58 - May 31 by yorkshireblue |
After Saudi Arabia beat Argentina in the World Cup, thier odds shot up. Oddschecker told me Bet365 had the best odds, so I created an account stuck a bet on and obviously it paid out and I made a decent amount.
I'm now restricted to £1.50 max bet on that particuarly platform after just one bet. |
Some of the bookies are scum. Some of them openly say that anyone who wins is cheating or using inside info etc. I think it was the Star Sports CEO who basically called matched bettors scum which is amusing as we are just turning the tables on them.
Bookies have all sorts of software to monitor betting patterns. Some are also ridiculously intolerant to ‘risk’. Risk being that someone takes the odds they offer and win. It is a crazy industry and they should be legally obligated to take a £100 bet from anyone. | |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:24 - May 31 with 862 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 09:16 - May 31 by Herbivore |
I am curious as to whether the pro-gambling folk who think gambling shouldn't be banned or over regulated because some people gamble problematically hold a similar view when it comes to the issue of how we deal with recreational drugs. Drugs and gambling are both known to be addictive and to cause serious issues for a percentage of people who participate in them. Should they be treated differently? My view is that both should be legal, highly regulated and the proceeds used from high levels of duty and tax used to fund proper support for those who are problem users. Just curious as to what some of the gamblers think on that. |
Like J2, I’m someone working in the industry and I think the issue many of us have is that gambling issues very much tend to be on the machines.
In fact, I’ve literally never had someone self exclude or someone I’ve thought needs to take a break from betting ‘over the counter’. It’s always the FOBT machines. And I have been the same on here for years (even before I started working for the other side) that the FOBTs are a real issue. I said on here maybe 6/7 years ago if I had my way, FOBTs would be heavily restricted. And I’d also have set limits for each customer before they come in the shop that they can’t override. Obviously they’ll then try to go to another shop but that 10/15 minute gap will give them time to clear their head and think rationally. The importance of ‘take a break’ can’t be stressed enough with those machines.
But the problem I have is that FOBTs and horse betting seem to be thrown in together in the white paper. That’s not right at all. There must be real focus and awareness on the issues around gambling but also not drastic measures that will impact people like me who have no issue with gambling and would never touch a FOBT. The white paper making me have to show my bank statement for a £125 loss on a bet is absolutely insane. And that’s it I can even get on in the first place with my student loan counting as a debt. It’s madness. | |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:25 - May 31 with 859 views | StokieBlue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:16 - May 31 by The_Romford_Blue |
There are a lot of things done to prevent money laundering though. Can’t pay out someone on card unless it’s a card bet originally etc |
There are always lots of things that can be done, whether they are done is a different matter and clearly they aren't always done otherwise a quick google wouldn't turn up articles with numerous companies being fined for not following AML rules.
You're right that it shouldn't be an issue.
My point was more that it was naïve to say that none of the money used in gambling made it to the endpoints that he listed.
SB | |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:29 - May 31 with 857 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:21 - May 31 by J2BLUE |
Some of the bookies are scum. Some of them openly say that anyone who wins is cheating or using inside info etc. I think it was the Star Sports CEO who basically called matched bettors scum which is amusing as we are just turning the tables on them.
Bookies have all sorts of software to monitor betting patterns. Some are also ridiculously intolerant to ‘risk’. Risk being that someone takes the odds they offer and win. It is a crazy industry and they should be legally obligated to take a £100 bet from anyone. |
As you know, I myself found an angle on the table tennis a few years ago. Only lasted a week but it was risk free. Basically sat watching Bet365s feed which was 15 seconds ahead of Skybets odds. So you could bet the person to win specific games at 10-9 up when they were in fact 11-9 victors. Within a week it was blocked and me and some mates I’d told about it got our accounts closed but despite one email suggesting the police could be informed, they were surely bitter about the £63k we took off them between 11 of us.
A few days later they retracted the police suggestion and seemed legitimately sour about the money. They had no proof and it was their own fault to allow us to do it by not realising they were behind another bookmaker with their feed.
Upon then closing my account, I had to get it in writing from them that they would honour my antepost bets with them for the following years Cheltenham. I think that’s important because had I forgotten about those bets, they’d have never have paid out even after a couple won. That’s poor from them. But it’s a good example of them trying to harm a winning punter.
Obviously the best legitimate example I can think of that wasn’t from something like that is Betway restricting me to £1.80 maximum bets. Awful. Because I win. They being able to ban winning customers affectively is a disgrace. [Post edited 31 May 2023 10:32]
| |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:36 - May 31 with 848 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:25 - May 31 by StokieBlue |
There are always lots of things that can be done, whether they are done is a different matter and clearly they aren't always done otherwise a quick google wouldn't turn up articles with numerous companies being fined for not following AML rules.
You're right that it shouldn't be an issue.
My point was more that it was naïve to say that none of the money used in gambling made it to the endpoints that he listed.
SB |
Ahh right I see. Fair enough.
The three objectives every shop has to follow to keep its license are:
- No vulnerable persons (kids, drunk people etc)
- prevention of crime
- Fair and open
The latter is about posting certain bet rules in all shops in certain places. The middle one about money laundering. Whilst it is something drilled into staff, both behind the counter and otherwise, it’s definitely something that can be exploited through gambling if the card/cash conversion rules aren’t followed properly | |
| |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:37 - May 31 with 848 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| 'Guest of honour' at the Championship play-off final... on 10:21 - May 31 by J2BLUE |
Some of the bookies are scum. Some of them openly say that anyone who wins is cheating or using inside info etc. I think it was the Star Sports CEO who basically called matched bettors scum which is amusing as we are just turning the tables on them.
Bookies have all sorts of software to monitor betting patterns. Some are also ridiculously intolerant to ‘risk’. Risk being that someone takes the odds they offer and win. It is a crazy industry and they should be legally obligated to take a £100 bet from anyone. |
Indeed. If someone has managed to 'beat the bookies' then fair play to them. I'm sure there are plenty who don't, to make up for it. It should be a level playing field. Refusing to take bets because someone's too successful is akin to taking your ball home because you're losing that particular game. Pathetic. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
