Gambling Reform and Society Perception (GRASP) Forum
October 19, 2017, 02:18:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: EVERY reason to never gamble again is all here. I didn't believe it myself either. I can't read it for you. Go!
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: October 17, 2017, 02:28:24 PM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by Anonamouse
Phillip Blond: It’s time to crack down on the crack cocaine of gambling

Phillip Blond
Last updated: October 17, 2017 at 12:28 pm


Phillip Blond is Director of ResPublica.

There is one kind of problem gambling that has managed to unify almost everyone against it, whatever their political stripes. This is the Fixed Odds Betting Terminal – or FOBT for short – a machine that is so addictive it has been likened to crack cocaine. Our new ResPublica report ‘Wheel of Misfortune outlines the case against these machines and calls for the elimination of their high stakes, high speed casino-like games.

FOBTs are found in betting shops across the country, and allow thousands of pounds to be poured into games like roulette. But this autumn, they may have now met their match, since the Government is about to publish a review of gaming machines, including FOBTs.

These are not like your old-school fruit machines. With FOBTs, a punter can spend £100 per spin, and do this every 20 seconds. There is nothing like them anywhere else in Europe. This toxic mix of high stakes and rapid spins is leaving an alarming amount of people with addiction and debt. The number of people using such machines is now estimated to have reached 1.5 million, with 43 per cent of those using these machines either ‘problem’ or ‘at risk gamblers.’ And when just looking at the number of problem gamblers that is surging from 280,00 in 2012 to 430,000 in 2015, an incraese of over 50 per cent. Research shows that most of those people come from some of Britain’s poorest neighbourhoods, especially those with BME communities. For example, 61 per cent of shops of one leading bookmaker are located in areas with greater numbers of non-UK born citizens.

And these are lucrative bits of kit. According to the Gambling Commission, there are now 34,388 FOBTs in the UK, generating £1.8 billion for the industry in gross profit – that’s £52,000 per machine per year. And with four allowed in each shop, that pretty much explains the economic basis of betting shop expansion on our high streets.

The root of this problem was a botched piece of legislation by the Labour government in 2005. Their Gambling Act placed a limit of four FOBTs per shop. But this limit meant that firms opened more gambling shops, leading to a clustering effect on our high streets. The number of betting shops in town centres has increased by 47 per cent since the Act came into force. That is why in one street in the London Borough of Newham, there is now a betting shop for every 120 metres.

Harriet Harman has said that “if we had known then what we know now, we wouldn’t have allowed this, because it’s not just ruining the high street, it’s ruining people’s lives”. This kind of honesty about past mistakes should be welcomed. But she said those words five years ago. And the problem has, as we argue, become steadily worse.

This is why the proper regulation of FOBTs should be seen as a truly Conservative cause. it is clear that the spread of gambling machines has not been stopped by the measures introduced two years ago to limit destructive behaviour, which as Iain Duncan Smith has pointed out on this site, is largely because betting shops are often understaffed, and simply lack the capacity to engage with and help problem gamblers stop.

FOBTs also harm wider economic prosperity. Typically, the defence of these machines is that they bring economic benefits, in terms of revenue generated through taxation and the jobs that they create in shops. But FOBTs do not operate like other parts of the labour market. They are machines that generate financial returns, but they do not represent a productive function. Much of their cash gets funnelled elsewhere, and is not put back into the local economy. Economists such as Howard Reed have found that FOBTs divert expenditure from more productive parts of the economy, and have an overall negative effect on both employment and enterprise. For example, four per cent of Liverpool City Region’s GVA, some £1.2 billion, was put into FOTBs last year.

This is harming our most deprived communities. Places such as Glasgow, Birmingham and Liverpool have some of the highest total number of betting shops, and in each the unemployment rate and proportion of workless households far exceeds both regional and national levels. There are now twice as many betting shops in the poorest 55 boroughs as there are in the wealthiest 115. This is clearly a predatory practice enacted on those who can least afford its costs.

In other words, whichever type of Conservative you are, free market, One Nation or liberal, it doesn’t make sense to have these machines continue to operate as they are.  Reform could be achieved with a single, targeted change to legislation. By reducing the maximum stake for Fixed Odds Betting Terminals from £100 to £2 per spin, individuals would have the freedom to gamble while the damage caused to high streets would be mitigated. Previous attempts to require customers to register in order to bet more than £50 a spin have not worked. Research shows comprehensively that only lower stakes, with fewer spins, can reduce the harm of problem gambling.

This is to argue for consistency. Such change would bring the regulation of FOBTs into line with other machines. It would bring Britain into line with other countries. And it would bring the Tories into line with other parties. More importantly, there is a reason why we tightly regulate casinos.  We don’t want them on every high street, yet now they are there, via FOBTs.  It is time to right this wrong.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thinktankcentral/2017/10/phillip-blond-its-time-to-crack-down-on-the-crack-cocaine-of-gambling.html

 2 
 on: October 17, 2017, 06:18:40 AM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by Anonamouse
Bookmaker Futures on the Line as Billion-Pound Review Looms

More stories by Lisa Pham
16 October 2017, 06:00 BST
For British bookmakers, the stakes couldn’t be much higher.

More than 1 billion pounds ($1.3 billion) of revenue will be on the line when the U.K. government publishes its three-yearly review of the roulette and blackjack machines situated in thousands of betting shops around the country.

After a delay caused by the country’s snap election earlier this year, companies including Ladbrokes Coral Group Plc and William Hill Plc are braced for an announcement. Most are resigned to a reduction in the maximum amount customers can wager, though the extent of the cut will be key in determining both future profit and the likelihood of more mergers and acquisitions in an industry that’s already undergone significant consolidation.

“A severe restriction on machines would lead to a huge drop in revenues,” said Gavin Kelleher, a Dublin-based analyst at Goodbody Stockbrokers. “The companies most affected are the ones that will probably take part in M&A.”


So-called fixed-odds betting terminals have become increasingly important to betting-shop owners in recent years as their share of traditional betting has been eroded by online operators. U.K. Gambling Commission figures show that 4.5 billion pounds was wagered online in the year ended March 2016, compared with the 3.3 billion pounds bet in shops.

Dubbed the “crack cocaine” of gambling by opponents because of concerns over addiction, the terminals can accept a maximum bet of 100 pounds every 20 seconds and earned the industry about 1.17 billion pounds in the 2016 fiscal year, according to Investec estimates.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s government is considering whether to cut that maximum stake, a move it would need to justify on grounds of helping reduce problem gambling. More than 2 million people are problem gamblers or at risk of addiction, the opposition Labour Party said last month, citing data from the Gambling Commission.

Some lawmakers are calling for the amount to be slashed to just 2 pounds, a move that Investec analyst Alistair Ross estimates could lead to more than a third of betting shops closing down, putting about 19,000 jobs at risk.


“Investors should focus on a 2 pound staking-limit scenario, which some industry players have dubbed an Armageddon scenario,” Ross said.

Shareholders are under no illusions. An Investec survey of 37 institutional investors showed that, on average, they expect the maximum stake to be cut to 14.50 pounds. Investec itself sees the limit being set at 10 pounds.

Such an eventuality has weighed on share prices, with William Hill falling 35 percent and Paddy Power Betfair Plc 15 percent since the end of 2015.

Those close to the industry expect an announcement from the government as early as this month, although the Prime Minister’s spokesman James Slack said there’s nothing in the diary for this week. The exact outcome may not be known until next year, with recent reports suggesting the government will first publish a range of possibilities, including an unchanged maximum as well as reductions to 30 pounds, 20 pounds and 2 pounds.

On Hold

For bankers, a resolution can’t come soon enough. A period of consolidation, including the mergers that created Ladbrokes Coral and Paddy Power Betfair Plc, has been on put on hold as bookmakers await their fate.

The bigger the cut in company revenue resulting from the review, the greater will be the prospect of further mergers and acquisitions. One possible deal that is the subject of growing speculation is a takeover of Ladbrokes Coral by GVC Holdings Plc. The former has hired advisers to look at possible merger options once the outcome of the review becomes clear, the Sunday Times reported last month, citing unidentified people.

“Every company in the sector has been keeping an open mind in terms of consolidation and you can’t rule any of them out,” Goodbody’s Kelleher said.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/bookmaker-futures-on-the-line-as-billion-pound-u-k-review-looms

 3 
 on: October 16, 2017, 08:09:10 PM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by aidan
Richas must be fuming.

 4 
 on: October 16, 2017, 07:10:38 PM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by Anonamouse
Wheel of Misfortune: The case for lowering the stakes on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Launched on 16th October, ResPublica’s new report with Campaign for Fairer Gambling: Wheel of Misfortune: The case for lowering the stakes on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.

This is a key moment in the debate over the regulation of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in Britain today. We remain the only country in the developed world that allows up to £100 to be staked every 20 seconds on casino-style gaming machines on our high streets.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is currently looking at the regulation of FOBTs as part of a wider review into gaming machines,
with the findings of this review due to be announced in the Autumn.

The review is taking place in the context of growing cross-party support for action to address the harm caused by FOBTs since their introduction to high streets in 2001, and is an opportunity to examine ways in which the Government can deliver better regulation of these machines for the benefit of people, their communities and the economy. Questions have been raised over a regulatory approach that has failed on its own terms by allowing and encouraging the proliferation of high stakes casino-style gaming machines on high streets, and that exposes to harm a disproportionate number of people who live in deprived areas.

In anticipation of the Government’s review into gambling, we believe that the debate must continue to focus on the impact that these machines have had on three aspects of life in Britain.

First, the impact on people. The number of people using casino-style, high stakes
gambling machines on Britain’s high streets is estimated to have reached 1.5 million. Evidence has shown that a disproportionate number of those people live in areas of poverty, high unemployment and deprivation. The growing prevalence of FOBTs on Britain’s high streets has contributed to increases in problem gambling over recent years, with a range of harmful impacts – from worklessness and indebtedness to domestic violence and family breakdown – which undermine the Government’s welcome focus on healing Britain’s social fabric. The latest available research has found that the number of problem gamblers has surged – from 280,000 in 2012 to 430,000 in 2015.

Second, the impact on economic prosperity. There has been a profoundly negative impact on the productive economy as FOBTs have grown. Typically, the defence of high stakes FOBTs is that they bring economic benefits. Our paper assesses the evidence and finds that this is manifestly not true because FOBTs are diverting expenditure from more productive parts of the economy. The rise of FOBTs has consequently damaged employment – 23,400 potential jobs lost last year alone – and in doing so has increased the burden on taxpayers. This hidden cost to the economy is substantial, and we argue that it should therefore be considered a priority for economic as well as social policy reform.

Third, the impact on place. Britain remains the only developed country in the world to
have high street betting shops that allow people to bet up to £100 every 20 seconds.6
Our high streets should be at the heart of our economic and social fabric, providing
both sources of local employment and enterprise but also places of community
life. But poor regulation has catalysed the disproportionate growth and “clustering” of
betting shops, and further driven the decline of thoroughfares that once flourished as centres of growth and community. We argue that regulation needs to be improved to
better serve communities, local business and our high streets.

The case for better regulation of FOBTs on Britain’s high streets is a call for greater consensus and consistency. It is clear that there is an opportunity for cross-party consensus: since the launch of the DCMS review, the Labour party has committed to reducing the maximum stake to £2, and to increasing the delay between spins in games. Likewise, the Liberal Democrats have committed to a reduction of the maximum stake to £2.8

Earlier this year, the cross-party APPG on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals concluded that there was a strong case for a reduction in the maximum stake to £2.9. This reduction would redress an imbalance created by the 2005 Gambling Act, whereby FOBTs were classified as “B2” machines and allowed a maximum stake of £100 on a single bet, as opposed to £2 for other B machines.

We believe that this year’s review of the gambling industry represents an opportunity for Government to respond to the prevailing calls for consensus and consistency, by introducing renewed regulation of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.

In this paper, we assess the evidence and the options open to policy-makers, and conclude that by implementing a clear policy to reduce the maximum stake for FOBTs to £2, the Government can put people, prosperity and places at the heart of their vision for the country.

Chris Philp, Conservative Member of Parliament for Croydon South and PPS to the Treasury, said:

“As the Government prepares a review of gambling, I welcome this report which calls for greater consistency and consensus in the regulation of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. Across all political parties, there is a strong feeling that these gambling machines are having a detrimental effect on our high streets. ResPublica’s report provides vital evidence to show how this damages the lives of people, our economic prosperity and the fabric of our communities. Crucially, it demonstrates how this damage could be mitigated by smarter regulation of gambling machines, by reducing their maximum stake to £2 per spin.

This is not about more regulation, but rather better regulation of machines that have
proliferated because of loop-holes in the 2005 Gambling Act. It would also bring the United Kingdom into line with gambling practice in the rest of the developed world.

I commend ResPublica’s report ahead of the Government review, and believe that implementation of their key recommendation would help provide a gambling climate in which prosperity can return to the lives of people and their communities.”

Phillip Blond, Director, ResPublica said:

“High streets that once flourished as centres of growth and community are now dominated by these shops. It has become a negative multiplier effect on our high streets: the spread of FOBTs creates higher levels of problem gambling, which creates a demand for more supply, which then, of course, encourages more machines. In some communities, the situation has got out of hand. The sheer number of these shops acts as a kind of sink hole on their high street, sucking in the vitality of everything else around them.

This is why the regulation of FOBTs should be seen as a truly Conservative cause.
If you care about thriving high streets, economic prosperity, or the social fabric of families and local communities, then it is clear that the spread of gambling machines in understaffed shops in some of our most deprived neighbourhoods has had a harmful effect on our country.

For families and communities, research has shown that the use of FOBTs contributes to increases in problem gambling, with a range of harmful impacts – from worklessness and indebtedness to mental health problems and domestic breakdown. Many of these problem gamblers come from some of our most vulnerable ethnic minorities. This should be at the top of the to-do list for a Prime Minister has placed social reform at the heart of her agenda, pledged to help people “just about managing”, and who has spoken eloquently about the importance of mental health.”

 5 
 on: October 16, 2017, 06:02:06 AM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by Anonamouse
Britain is the only developed country to have high street betting shops that allow people to bet up to £100 every 20 seconds, according to a report.

The government should cut the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) from £100 to £2 because such high stakes destroy jobs, devastate communities and are “highly destructive” to family life, the Conservative think tank Respublica argues.

Phillip Blond, co-author of the report, said: “Conservatives should not support a piece of New Labour legislation that has wrought destruction throughout some of our most disadvantaged communities.”

The machines, which have been dubbed “the crack cocaine of gambling”, allow customers to place bets of up to £100 every 20 seconds on electronic casino games such as blackjack and roulette. Critics say that the high stakes and quickfire gameplay encourages customers to chase their losses and bet ever higher amounts.

In total about 1.5 million people play the machines, collectively losing more than £1.7 billion last year, almost £12,000 each on average. A third of players are “at risk” of becoming serious addicts, according to the Gambling Commission.

The Respublica report highlights that in a single year people using FOBTs lost £1,000 or more on 233,071 separate occasions. It says the average player has personal debt of £17,500.

“Problem gambling triggered by these machines pushes people from just about managing to not managing at all,” the report notes. “A lower maximum stake would help individuals remain in control of their gambling and prevent the development of habits that cause harm.”

One under-recognised result of high stake levels is the damage being done to children, the report says. “The impact of parents affected by problem gambling is stark. Research shows that problem gambling has been strongly linked to worklessness and unemployment, as problem gamblers find it harder to retain work and gain new employment. Thousands of children are growing up in indebted households. This has been linked in turn to family breakdown, an increased risk of children developing mental health conditions and stigmatisation at school and among peers.”

It highlights Liverpool, which has the third highest concentration of bookmaking shops in the country. It says that 4 per cent of the city’s entire economic output is put into FOBTs.

The report comes as the government finalises a review of stake levels and gambling advertising, which is due to report in the next few weeks. The review is expected to recommend a number of different options and put them out to consultation.

The Respublica report concludes: “A reduction of the maximum stake from £100 to £2 would represent a practical, viable way of addressing the damaging impact of FOBTs. Research definitively shows that only lower stakes, with fewer spins, can tackle the harm of problem gambling on our high streets.

“This type of regulation of FOBTs would bring them into line with other machines and Britain into line with other countries. And it would bring the Tories into line with other parties.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gambling-machines-with-100-stake-are-only-allowed-in-uk-mm3x3l9kw

 6 
 on: October 14, 2017, 07:26:31 AM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by Anonamouse
Online gambling backlash against "fake news"

The Sunday Times has claimed that gambling operators are using a loophole to target minors, creating games that appeal to children without necessarily breaching The Gambling Commission’s terms and conditions.

The national newspaper’s investigation reported that operators were luring children to gamble with their favourite cartoon and storybook characters in online betting games.

The issue raised from the inquiry concerns the fact that stakes on the aforementioned games range from 1p to £600, and can be played for free without registration or any age verification checks. Some of the companies and games named include Peter Pan on the Paddy Power website, Jack and the Beanstalk on the 888 website and Moon Princess on the Casinoland website.

The industry has continued to deny such allegations, stating they have not deliberately tried to entice minors to use their games. Nonetheless, the Advertising Standards Agency has said it will investigate the claims.

In an open letter to the Editor of The Sunday Times, the Gambling Commission stated: “Protecting children from being harmed or exploited by gambling is a clear priority for the Gambling Commission. Where businesses fail to protect vulnerable people, especially children, we have and will continue to take firm action.”

Some believe gambling companies are to blame for the worrying statistics around underage gambling, with Dominic Lawson from The Daily Mail stating: “Gambling firms targeting children are just as wicked as drug pushers.”

However, others believe the investigation to be a farce, with GBGC Director Warwick Bartlett commenting: “Advertising is expensive, and gambling companies measure the return of every advert that is placed against new accounts vs cost, known in the trade as customer acquisition cost. Why would a gambling company spend millions trying to entice children to gamble when at the point of sale they cannot open an account?

“The company’s KYC would block them, they cannot deposit unless they are 18+ years. This is fake news. Cartoon characters are often used instead of real people because computer graphics are cheaper than paying for overpriced stars. Oh, and by the way they do not only appeal to children, adults like them too.”

Critics of the gambling industry have decided that only children or minors enjoy fictional characters and cartoons, which simply isn’t the case. “On a flight back from Las Vegas I walked down the aisle of the plane and saw thirty percent of adults watching the latest hit cartoon film Despicable Me,” added Bartlett.

The commission has passed on a Sunday Times dossier of over 30 games to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for investigation. According to The Gambling Commission, nearly half a million children have been found to gamble in England and Wales every week, according to The Gambling Commission. Furthermore, in a report released last year in November, 6% of 11 to 15-year-olds have gambled online using funds from their parents’ accounts.

Whilst there is a common view that should these shocking statistics should be blamed on the gambling industry, some would argue there is an issue here with parental negligence.

Industry expert and gambling consultant, Steve Donoughue states: “The fear that we have an epidemic of gambling addicted children lured online by cartoon characters used in online slots is nonsense and The Times should know better.

“Yes we have sites which allow people to play for free without age verification and so logically this could mean children play them. Does this mean the industry is targeting children? No it doesn't. They aren't allowed to gamble and age checks will pick them up if they try and play for money.

“So will they become addicts if they play for free? Probably not because children have been playing gambling style games for centuries and still less than 1% get a problem. But what about the adults that let their kids play using their accounts? That would be a parenting issue, where are the failed politicians making a fuss about that?”


Online gambling backlash against "fake news"

The Sunday Times has claimed that gambling operators are using a loophole to target minors, creating games that appeal to children without necessarily breaching The Gambling Commission’s terms and conditions.

The national newspaper’s investigation reported that operators were luring children to gamble with their favourite cartoon and storybook characters in online betting games.

The issue raised from the inquiry concerns the fact that stakes on the aforementioned games range from 1p to £600, and can be played for free without registration or any age verification checks. Some of the companies and games named include Peter Pan on the Paddy Power website, Jack and the Beanstalk on the 888 website and Moon Princess on the Casinoland website.

The industry has continued to deny such allegations, stating they have not deliberately tried to entice minors to use their games. Nonetheless, the Advertising Standards Agency has said it will investigate the claims.

In an open letter to the Editor of The Sunday Times, the Gambling Commission stated: “Protecting children from being harmed or exploited by gambling is a clear priority for the Gambling Commission. Where businesses fail to protect vulnerable people, especially children, we have and will continue to take firm action.”

Some believe gambling companies are to blame for the worrying statistics around underage gambling, with Dominic Lawson from The Daily Mail stating: “Gambling firms targeting children are just as wicked as drug pushers.”

However, others believe the investigation to be a farce, with GBGC Director Warwick Bartlett commenting: “Advertising is expensive, and gambling companies measure the return of every advert that is placed against new accounts vs cost, known in the trade as customer acquisition cost. Why would a gambling company spend millions trying to entice children to gamble when at the point of sale they cannot open an account?

“The company’s KYC would block them, they cannot deposit unless they are 18+ years. This is fake news. Cartoon characters are often used instead of real people because computer graphics are cheaper than paying for overpriced stars. Oh, and by the way they do not only appeal to children, adults like them too.”

Critics of the gambling industry have decided that only children or minors enjoy fictional characters and cartoons, which simply isn’t the case. “On a flight back from Las Vegas I walked down the aisle of the plane and saw thirty percent of adults watching the latest hit cartoon film Despicable Me,” added Bartlett.

The commission has passed on a Sunday Times dossier of over 30 games to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for investigation. According to The Gambling Commission, nearly half a million children have been found to gamble in England and Wales every week, according to The Gambling Commission. Furthermore, in a report released last year in November, 6% of 11 to 15-year-olds have gambled online using funds from their parents’ accounts.

Whilst there is a common view that should these shocking statistics should be blamed on the gambling industry, some would argue there is an issue here with parental negligence.

Industry expert and gambling consultant, Steve Donoughue states: “The fear that we have an epidemic of gambling addicted children lured online by cartoon characters used in online slots is nonsense and The Times should know better.

“Yes we have sites which allow people to play for free without age verification and so logically this could mean children play them. Does this mean the industry is targeting children? No it doesn't. They aren't allowed to gamble and age checks will pick them up if they try and play for money.

“So will they become addicts if they play for free? Probably not because children have been playing gambling style games for centuries and still less than 1% get a problem. But what about the adults that let their kids play using their accounts? That would be a parenting issue, where are the failed politicians making a fuss about that?”

 7 
 on: October 02, 2017, 05:35:47 PM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by Anonamouse
Kevin Twaddle: Football doesn’t want to fix its gambling problem. There’s too much money at stake

Author: Kevin Twaddle, 02 October 2017
Kevin Twaddle (David McNie)
Kevin Twaddle (David McNie)
Register for our free newsletterRegister for our free newsletter
I KNOW exactly the mess Kyle Lafferty is in at the moment. I was in it too.

The Hearts footballer revealed a serious gambling addiction last week and told how he ended up shouting down the phone to his bookie after being cut off.

You know it’s bad when even the bookmaker won’t take your money.

Good for Kyle for speaking up. It takes real courage to come forward and admit you’ve got a serious problem.

It’s so tough to do while you’re still playing – I couldn’t do it.

If he gets a grip of his addiction then he’ll still have a career and some cash in the bank.

My own problem went much further – I gambled away at least a million quid and even sunk so low as to end up stealing money from my dying nana to fund my habit.

I wanted to kill myself before I got a grip and got some help.

But Kyle is far from the only player with a problem.

If you somehow managed to catch all the players putting a coupon on at the bookies this coming Saturday morning and dished out an instant ban then there wouldn’t be a game at 3pm.

There’s a culture of gambling among a lot of clubs. It is an epidemic.

I go to Gamblers Anonymous and do talks for clubs about the dangers so I see first hand the damage this is doing.

You might suspect it’s bad but, make no mistake, it’s much worse.

Fortunes are being lost, families torn apart and lives are being destroyed, but we don’t hear about it.

It’s throughout the game – players are caught in a helpless cycle, chasing bigger and bigger losses.

But I know from bitter experience that more is never enough.

The clubs with a lot of foreign players tend to be better. That’s because it’s the British players who have a real problem.

It’s a problem with British society.

Don’t get me wrong, I take full responsibility for my addiction. The bookie didn’t make me put a bet on. It’s just everywhere.

The beautiful game isn’t beautiful any more – it’s just a way to make money.

The gambling cash is pouring into our game and it’s part of the reason wages are going up and up.

And the range of bets you can put on now is ridiculous. You can put a bet on when a ball is going to go out for a throw in. That’s really dangerous for the players.

My manager at Motherwell, Billy Davies, used to tell me at kick-off to launch the ball out of play into the corner so we could immediately push up the park.

You can put a bet on that now – and I would have if I was still playing. Of course I would, I’d have made a fortune.

I don’t think footballers are special cases, though. Yes, they’ve got time and money but the way I see it our whole society has a gambling problem.

At my meetings I see doctors, lawyers and nurses who are leading a manic lifestyle, unable to press the “collect” button.

Football isn’t football any more, it’s just a big gambling industry.

The game isn’t interested in sorting itself out because too many people are lining their pockets off the back of betting.

You won’t meet a more passionate family guy than me, but I put them through real heartache, and Kyle will have done the same.

The toughest part is taking that step forward and admitting you need help.

His family are standing by him, which is a major help. My heart goes out to them because they’ll have been through the wringer.

I put my family through the wringer.

If you’re a compulsive gambler then you’re likely to be a compulsive liar, too. It’s hard to trust someone after that.

Kyle will feel guilty. I certainly was after what I did to my family.

These days I’m thankful. My painting and decorating business is going well and I’ve got a beautiful wife and child.

When I told my dad about my problem he said it was the proudest of me he’d ever been.

Can you believe that? He watched his son make a career of being a professional footballer but he knew I had a problem with gambling.

I’d never cried in front of him but I cried then.


https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/football-doesnt-want-to-fix-its-gambling-problem-theres-too-much-money-at-stake/

 8 
 on: October 02, 2017, 02:00:35 PM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by DaftDave
I was told this 25 years ago about bookmakers in general.

At the time mobile phones were banned on courses except for the individuals who did this.

Also they left it to the last moment to cause what I think is called a short book.  If they did it 10 minutes before the race the other horse odds would go up, but doing it just before just the horse they bet on goes down.

Mugs game or what

 9 
 on: October 02, 2017, 01:46:00 PM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by Anonamouse
Paddy Power secretly manipulates the odds of on-course bookmakers in horse races to deny customers thousands of euros in winnings, The Times has learnt.

Representatives of the company are instructed by traders at head office to place bets at racecourses designed to collapse “starting price” (SP) odds, according to three people with knowledge of the practice.

Paddy Power merged with Betfair in 2015 to form a company with a market capitalisation of €7.7 billion. Bookmakers in Ireland are largely unregulated and a gambling control bill drawn up to modernise oversight of the industry has not progressed since 2013.

SP is supposed to be set independently. It is calculated by a third party using a random sample of odds from on-course bookmakers to find a fair price for a horse. The SP is not determined until the race starts, so it is regarded as reflective of the true market on a race.

However, large bookmakers can interfere if they believe it will help them save money. A trader at headquarters calls an agent at the course and instructs them to place a large bet in the final moments before a race starts. This artificially lowers the SP and reduces the payout to customers who put their stake on the SP if their horse wins.

The practice is not illegal and was said to be industry-wide. The Times has spoken to people with direct knowledge of its use at Paddy Power.

One said that the method was often used if a customer had an accumulator that looked likely to pay out. Paddy Power will collapse the SP on the final race, reducing its loss, it was claimed.

The practice protects Paddy Power, because the company offers “best odds guaranteed”. This means that if the SP is higher than the price set by its traders, it will pay out on the SP — further motivation to manipulate the price.

A former trader at Paddy Power said that although bookmakers were entitled to protect themselves by hedging bets with other companies, it was a “sharp practice” to collapse SP odds.

Kevin Blake, an analyst at the television channel At The Races, said that big bookmakers frequently exploited the fact that on-course betting rings have taken in less money since the rise of online betting.

“They have a situation where the betting ring is very weak and is easily manipulated, so they’re just doing it as a matter of routine to keep their books that bit greener,” he said.

“There’s no regulation, there’s no representative body . . . The big companies like Paddy Power think they have an absolute free run at these things, so they do what they like.”

The identities of on-course bookmakers used for the SP calculation are not supposed to be public, Mr Blake said, but big bookmakers know of them and use the information to manipulate the price. “The vibe at the courses is that the big firms, one way or another, find out and then punt with them to get whatever result they want with the SP.”

He said the practice had once been confined to smaller tracks and less popular meetings but is now evident at the biggest events, including the Galway Races. There had been “glaring examples”, he said, of SP being manipulated in comparison with the odds on an online exchange, which allows punters to bet against each other.

A former Paddy Power trader said that evidence of manipulation could be seen when the on-course SP was compared with exchanges such as Betfair.

“There’s a total disconnect in the Betfair market, where there could be €5 million of bets matched on a horse,” they said. “It could be a favourite at 11-4 but all of a sudden it’s 6-4 at the on-course SP, and people are wondering where they are getting such tight odds.

“Obviously someone was shovelling a load of money onto the SP just before the race went off to drive it down.”

Another source at Paddy Power confirmed that SP manipulation was routine to cut losses. A drop in odds from 11-4 to 6-4 could save Paddy Power Betfair tens of thousands of euros in a single race.

A spokesman for Paddy Power said that the company was entitled to protect itself from losses. “As with any bookmaker, we will hedge to control our liabilities,” he said. “This hedging could be done via our Betfair Exchange, through other off-course bookmakers, or through on-track bookmakers.”

Hedging is accepted to mean placing bets on several outcomes or with other bookmakers, to ensure that some money is returned regardless of the winner. The spokesman declined to comment further when asked if SP manipulation was distinct from hedging because it was designed only to undermine customers’ winnings.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bookmaker-fixes-race-odds-l77zwmbrd

 10 
 on: October 02, 2017, 06:03:22 AM 
Started by Anonamouse - Last post by DaftDave
I think it is a bit more than the crack cocaine of gambling that got us here, oh and I honestly believe the next target should be children gambling.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!