No problem and apology accepted. But that is what they do, they open their betting offices and advertise all sorts of online offers. Nobody is forced to take up their 'free bet when you open an account' offers it's not 'dark arts' at all. The Guardian would refer to it as 'dark arts' as they much anti successful corporate organisations.
Sorry it's not the Guardian themselves it's an excerpt from a book. But your last sentence shows your bias so
I believe it was 2001 and Brown and Blair (who I voted for twice!). Tax the companies and not the punter. Then changed the betting regs in 2004. Shameful legacy.
We all have out biased views or opinions.Sorry it's not the Guardian themselves it's an excerpt from a book. But your last sentence shows your bias so
The issue I have with the bookies is that they are very quick to ban or limit winning punters. Regarding affordability questionnaires, that is exactly what the online casinos and bookies are supposed to do under the gambling regulations. I have had to send in affordability questionnaires, bank statements and tax returns to online casinos to enable them to set monthly deposit limits. The big bookies such as Bet365, William Hill and Ladbrokes are also supposed to do that in their online businesses but they only bother when punters are winning regularly. They pretty much ignore the Gambling Commission legislation or twist it to weed out the winners and fleece the losers.
That's not correct. I was a successful punter for 5 years but I had to keep on opening new accounts with many betting companies because they were closing my accounts after only a few weeks or months. I had over 100 different betting accounts and I now have only 4 or 5 left where I can place a bet higher than a quid. I stopped completely about 18 months ago because it was impossible to make money. I was in contact with several other successful online punters and there's only two still going with a small number of accounts.Successful punters complain about the bookies all the time because they make it virtually impossible to win regularly.
That's exactly what the online companies are supposed to do; assess your financial circumstances and your source of funds and then set a monthly deposit limit. I have been through that process many times.
I liked your comment, but I think there’s a case to make for the National Lottery which is gambling but has a genuine and traceable charitable arm which has given a lot of money to some deserving causes.
Betting tax was abolished because it was impossible with the introduction of online betting because the online betting companies were not legally resident in the UK.
Last week I was in Ladbrokes and was doing my nuts on a fobt when a manager approached me about my spending.. I wasn't even aware they could see how much I was spending in the machine! He asked for my name and I refused so he said I would have to leave if I don't tell him. When I pointed out that I didn't have I'd on me to prove my name anyway, to paraphrase his response, it was basically, "mate I'm just doing my job", if you tell me your name is "Scott noname" (getting?) that's what I will record!!!
The 2001 Budget abolished the tax. The Gambling Act 2005 led to the explosion in UK online gambling. Not sure of chicken and egg here tbf.
One of the stated reasons for abolishing the tax was online gambling.Gamblers were starting to use foreign betting services, hence the subsequent explosion in UK services.
With this post & your subsequent posts I get the impression you don't understand how an addiction to anything works. Lets say you put £1 on a horse on the Grand National once a year, if you win the bet at 150/1 that year you'll be buzzing. You've just won £150 plus your £1 back. Next year you may put £2 on as your horse came in last year, so you're subconsciously hoping you get that buzz again, but perhaps you'll win more this time as you've put on £2 to add to the excitement. It seems all very simplistic to you that you only want that buzz once a year but some people 'want' or actually 'need' that buzz for reasons that those who are lucky enough not to have an addiction can't understand. I don't know why I used to smoke, I don't know why I still vape but in my head something would be missing in my life if I didn't vape (completely irrational I know, I also know that the physical addiction would be gone within a couple of weeks) but it's a habit, it's really easy to get into a habit but really difficult to break a habit, no matter what it is. No way if I had £23k would I spend it at a bookmakers, in that respect I'm 'ok' with money but the person who spent that may have needed £50k for a deposit on a house & it was in for a penny in for a pound. I can't get out of my nicotine addiction though.
It’s more sinister than that though - for example, they’ll allow you to suspend your account if you want. If you do, you’re very likely to get an attractive offer at literally the point your suspension expires to get you back betting. Their systems are incredibly sophisticated (as others have posted) and analyse behaviour to the nth degree - but to maximise profit, not act responsibly. They could very, very easily use the same systems to help protect people from themselves.
……….but once you’re sat in the pub slaughtered and the landlord can clearly see that, he won’t serve you any more (and legally isn’t allowed to). Bet and lose large amounts of money, say late at night and typically after the last Friday of the month (ie payday) with an online firm and they’ll keep sending you enticing offers at exactly that time - the exact and very detailed data and algos they use to generate the offers and influence activity could and should be used to protect those unable to stop themselves (hence the WH fine)