UK's Leading Independent Bookmaker. We pay our tax and Levy to British Racing as an Approved Betting Partner. And no begging a proper bet here, large or small stakers welcome! Text, phone, APP or website. Private Client Wagering at its best. :)
Great Britain: Regulation – Is the Great British Gambling Debate heading for a Terminal solution?
Last week’s House of Lords debate on gambling advertising was in many respects the same tired old combination of mistruths and moral indignation; but it was notable for providing a glimpse into the next phase of gambling policy discourse in Britain. Lord Foster of Bath, who instigated the short debate told the House that:
“I suspect public concern is about to rise because, in July, the Gambling Commission will release new figures about gambling harm. The Gambling Minister in the other place has already indicated that they are likely to show that 1.3 million people will classify as ‘problem gamblers’ and that a further 6 million are at risk. If confirmed, these figures are far higher than those used to inform the Government’s work on their White Paper. This is a real cause for concern, further strengthening the call for action.”
The intent could not be clearer. If the publication of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (‘GSGB’) in July reveals a markedly higher rate of ‘problem gambling’ than the estimates relied upon by the Government in its White Paper, then the wisdom of the policies contained therein will be open to question. Lord Foster’s point is a fair one. In its White Paper, the Government relied on the 2018 Health Survey for England, which reported a ‘problem gambling’ prevalence rate of 0.38%; and the current Official Statistic (from the HSE 2021) is 0.25%. The Final Experimental Stage of the GSGB reported a figure of 2.5% – between six and ten times higher than the HSE. If the Government and regulator are confident that results obtained from the GSGB are reliable, concern groups will justifiably ask for a re-run of certain policy decisions (and possibly even Judicial Review, given the litigious bent of some activists).
The problem is, of course, that the Gambling Commission does not appear to be at all confident that results obtained from the GSGB will be reliable. Each of the new survey’s iterations – from the Pilot Survey in 2022 to the Experimental Stages in 2023 to Wave 1 of the official survey in 2024 – has revealed signs of sample bias. In an independent review (‘independently’ funded by the Gambling Commission), Professor Patick Sturgis of the London School of Economics, commented on the “non-negligible risk” that the GSGB would “substantially over-state the true level of gambling and gambling harm in the population”. He also urged caution, warning that “until there is a better understanding of the errors affecting the new survey’s estimates of the prevalence of gambling and gambling harm, policy-makers must treat them with due caution.” Such advice appears lost on the Commission (which prefers to gloss over inconvenient opinions). In addition to rates of ‘problem’ and ‘at risk’ gambling’, it plans to release survey findings in respect of suicidality, violence and abuse, mental ill-health and use of food banks – in the knowledge that the figures may very well be incorrect and misleading. Just when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport might have thought it was nearing the end of a long and tortuous journey on gambling reform, the Commission is throwing down new track.
The threat to the licensed betting and gaming market in Great Britain is severe. The public health establishment (including senior figures within the Department for Health and Social Care) has signalled its intention to “tackle gambling” (all gambling and not just harmful gambling) in the same way that it has dealt with tobacco smoking. Demands for total bans on advertising (including at racecourses), the sale of beer and wine in bingo clubs and casinos and the imposition of ‘plain packaging’ for all gambling products (no colours, logos or images – farewell Queen of Hearts), will intensify. In Scotland, it is reported that the SNP plans to raise the legal age of gambling if it achieves independence (presumably with a carve out for anti-gambling vitriol in its Hate Speech legislation) but this is only a stop along the route rather than a final destination. It is far from obvious however, that the industry realises the perilous nature of its current position. Tone-deaf advertising on bus stops and at railway stations only strengthens the ground for those seeking a terminal solution.
Great Britain: Regulation – The Invisible Hand of Gambling Market Regulation Some years ago, Britain’s Gambling Commission announced that it had banned the term ‘responsible gambling’. At the time it seemed like an odd move. Notwithstanding legitimate concerns about the misuse of ‘responsible gambling’ by some licensees (see for example, http://regulusp.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-recklessness-of-gambling-responsibly.html), there is generally something a little unsettling about state agencies censoring language.
Based on recent statements, one could be forgiven for thinking that the concept of responsible regulation might also have had its day. In an interview for the Smart Betting Club, GB Gambling Commission CEO, Andrew Rhodes appeared to wash his organisation’s hands of any responsibility for devising affordability checks; claiming that the current informal regime is the result of licensees reacting to enforcement cases rather than regulatory diktat. The theory of ‘spontaneous adoption’ however requires us to overlook the fact that in 2020, the Commission warned licensees that: “customers wishing to spend more than the national average should be asked to provide information to support a higher affordability trigger such as three months’ payslips, P60s, tax returns or bank statements which will both inform the affordability level the customer may believe appropriate with objective evidence whilst enabling the licensee to have better insight into the source of those funds and whether they are legitimate or not.” Mr Rhodes’s assurance that the Government does not want gamblers to produce payslips might be more convincing if it were not for the fact that this is precisely what the Gambling Commission has demanded of them. During the podcast, he described plans for financial risk checks and financial vulnerability assessments as Government policy, which the regulator has been asked to execute. This much is true; but it is also the case that the Commission has been the principal architect of that policy. Rhodes suggested that the Commission’s own plans for checks had been overtaken by the Government’s review of the Gambling Act, stating that: “a lot of people were saying that this is a really big policy topic and it’s really a matter for the White Paper – the Gambling Commission shouldn’t be trying to address this. And we agreed.” The fact is however, that when the Commission launched its call for evidence on affordability checks in November 2020, it did so in the full knowledge that the Government’s own review was imminent. Papers released under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Commission had originally expected the DCMS call for evidence in October – a month before its own was launched. Its refusal to publish the results – including the views of 12,125 individuals (understood to be mainly customers) – cannot be justified by reference to the White Paper alone. The Commission’s view that there is “no outstanding public interest” in releasing the information (1,169 days later and counting) is unlikely to be shared by those who took the trouble to respond.
Mr Rhodes also confirmed his expectation that “the black market in the UK will grow because it is being targeted” by unlicensed operators. There was little recognition however, of the contribution – positive or negative – of market rules to the creation of conditions in which illegal activity expands, rather like governments printing money and then blaming commodity prices for inflation. He also claimed that coverage of black-market issues by the Racing Post had been not “entirely helpful” – but it wasn’t clear what this was intended to convey. One possible interpretation is that the RP’s coverage may itself have encouraged bettors to use unlicensed bookmakers – a claim that requires substantiation if it is to be advanced (we stress that we do not know what Mr Rhodes meant by the remark; merely that this is one reasonable interpretation).
Andrew Rhodes cuts an increasingly frustrated figure these days – often giving the impression that everything would be fine if only people could be made to understand. He deserves credit for agreeing to take part in the SBC podcast. Engagement with a wide range of stakeholders is an essential ingredient of good market regulation. For it to be meaningful however, engagement requires a willingness to deal frankly with difficult issues, even if this involves occasional admission of responsibility or fallibility. To err is human; to evade is political. If the Government really wishes to sort out the mess of affordability checks, it should initiate a review to identify how the current system came into being and what the effects have been (in terms of harm prevention, consumer behaviour, law-breaking and market functioning). The truth is that a series of pilot schemes for affordability checks has been running for several years now. The effects of this programme should be independently assessed and evaluated – but this seems unlikely to take place. The lack of curiosity from officialdom about the origins and effects of affordability checks is telling.
To what extent should the Gambling Commission be guided by the Regulators’ Code in discharging its duties? To what extent does it comply with the Code and how would we ever know? Does this matter? This is the discussion that we hope to stimulate with the publication today of our new report, ‘Questions of Principle: Assessing the Gambling Commission’s compliance with the Regulators’ Code and the Nolan Principles’. At present, there is considerable uncertainty about what influence, if any, the Code should exercise on the regulation of Britain’s betting and gaming market; and the perpetuation of this uncertainty, we argue, is unlikely to be in the best interests of consumers.
The Regulators’ Code was introduced in 2014 by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills. All statutory regulators in Great Britain – including the Gambling Commission – are required to “have regard” to the Code in exercising their duties – a phrase that accommodates a high degree of subjectivity. Last year, the Commission’s chief executive, Andrew Rhodes described the Code as “not a long document – just seven pages”; and “a sensible set of guiding principles” – a characterisation that drew rebuke from the legal community. On leading lawyer responded: “I am sure Andrew Rhodes wouldn’t like to see gambling operators treating, for example, its seven page Industry Guidance on High Value Customers as just a ‘sensible set of guiding principles’”. The exchange highlighted an unhelpful difference of opinion between the market regulator, its licensees and licensing lawyers.
The Code itself consists of six provisions:Regulators should carry out their activities in a way that supports those they regulate to comply and grow;Regulators should provide simple and straightforward ways to engage with those they regulate and hear their views;Regulators should base their regulatory activities on risk;Regulators should share information about compliance and risk;Regulators should ensure clear information, guidance and advice is available to help those they regulate meet their responsibilities to comply;Regulators should ensure that their approach to their regulatory activities is transparent. Regulators are required to adhere to the Code in the context of their wider statutory roles and they may exempt themselves from certain provisions, so long as they explain why.
Our analysis suggests that, while the Gambling Commission (which has not announced any Code exemptions) is often compliant, there have been instances where it appears to have breached code provisions, sometimes on a repeated basis. Our report highlights particular concerns with regard to the Commission’s observance of the first and sixth Code provisions – supporting compliance and growth; and ensuring transparency.
The first of these Code provisions is often misinterpreted as a requirement for the Commission to encourage economic growth at all costs – something that is clearly incorrect. The provision is however, more nuanced than this. It asks that regulators “avoid imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens”; and that they “assess whether similar social, environmental and economic outcomes could be achieved by less burdensome means”. They should also “understand and minimise negative economic impacts of their regulatory activities”; “improve confidence in compliance for those they regulate, by providing greater certainty”; and “ensure that their officers have the necessary knowledge and skills to support those they regulate, including having an understanding of those they regulate that enables them to choose proportionate and effective approaches.”
These are sensible requirements for any market regulator; and yet we were able to find little evidence that the Commission actively pursues them. Its public consultations rarely (if ever) suggest active consideration of the need to understand and minimise regulatory burdens. Last year, the Commission’s chief executive, Andrew Rhodes observed (correctly) that “growth must come when the business is compliant, not instead of it”. This is undoubtedly true, but the fact is that most licensees are compliant (if they were not then they would cease, at some point, to be licensees). No market – even a monopoly – is likely to be 100% compliant all of the time; and it is clearly not the intent of the Code that regulators should withhold support pending universal compliance. It is also unclear why the Commission would see non-compliance as a reason to ignore its duty to “understand and minimise negative economic impacts” of its regulatory activities, or to “ensure that their officers have the necessary knowledge and skills” – particularly when it is often the customer who ‘pays’ for impacts and deficits.
Our report highlights a number of instances where the Commission appears to have fallen short of the standards set by the Code. These include:The approval of regulatory settlement grants for organizations and individuals openly engaged in anti-gambling advocacy;The misuse of statistics and research – and the withholding of key evidence -in public consultations on regulatory reform;Inconsistent and often opaque approaches to policy determination (arising from public consultations);A failure to apply evaluation or scrutiny to the award of £90m of regulatory settlements between 2019 and 2023. In addition, as we note in our article for Cieo this week (Help! I have become an ‘issue’ – Cieo), we have uncovered indications of bias within the Commission’s Advisory Board for Safer Gambling, as well as the existence of secret meeting notes which should, in our view, have been published.
Any review of compliance is necessarily selective – and no organization is perfect. It is important not to lose sight of the many achievements of the Commission in supporting a generally well-functioning market, characterised by low rates of illegal and underage gambling and a world-leading approach to sports integrity. The rate of ‘problem gambling’ is also very low by international standards, with 0.25% of adults estimated to be PGSI ‘problem gamblers’. This, at least, is the case at present – although the Commission’s plan to replace the ‘gold standard’ NHS Health Survey with its experimental Gambling Survey for Great Britain seems certain to result in much higher – and far less reliable – reported rates of ‘problem gambling’.
The Regulators’ Code is a valuable document, designed to help market regulators to focus on their statutory roles, without getting distracted by alternative, often incompatible political agendas. The Commission has the opportunity to make far greater use of the Code by stating explicitly how it guides its strategy; by actively monitoring and reporting on its compliance (as some other regulators do); and by establishing a mechanism for constructive engagement with licensees and others in regard to suspected breaches. The absence of such measures will inevitably give rise to confusion and cynicism – neither of which is in the interests of the consumers who the Gambling Commission was established to serve.Please see our full report here:
Disclaimer; The analysis provided in this report represents the opinions of the authors. Any assessment of trends and change is necessarily subjective. The information and opinions provided herein are not intended to provide legal, accounting, investment or policy advice, nor should they be used as a forecast. Regulus Partners may act, or have acted, for any of the companies and other stakeholders mentioned in this report.
The big news breaking in the gambling sector, is the United Kingdom Gambling Commission move to establish ‘affordability thresholds’ for customers betting with UK operators. From next may customers will be required to provide evidence of affordability if they with so gamble in excess of state-imposed spending limits, which could be as low as £100 a month!
Remember, folks, this is a rolling check. People’s gambling habits change by the month. Don’t imagine you can prove you’re not a drug dealing peddler by the provision of one bank statement! In the brave new world of regulation EVERYONE is assumed to be a money launderer
I don’t know about you, but this Big Brother approach scares the pants off me. An official in Birmingham instructing how much I spend every month on my hobby? At what stage did their policy advisors decide they should embark on policy more suited to China?
And to make it work will ultimately require linkage between operators. The sharing of your financial data, otherwise known as the ‘single customer view’ mandates operators to ‘pool’ information about their customers. Rival companies being asked to share confidential information with each other on their customers, and their activity. How does that go when you have a good customer, who loses? You’re going to share that with Bet365?
And yet, the major betting companies dutifully sent along their compliance officers to consider such plans, with commission officials. Giving false credence to plans drawn up by 5 year old zealots.
This represents, of course, a precedent for state-controlled spending. It also assumes that gambling presents a special case, as distinct for example to drinking or smoking. Neither which is subject to such intervention. Both of those addictive products considerably more harmful, but no checks because politicians know such moves would be deeply unpopular, and of course both politicians, and anti gambling lobbyists all drink! It’s more about self interest than common sense
Far easier attack gambling when half the population don’t gamble at all. A ready-mix pool of disapproving busy bodies. There’s nothing like the curtain twitching cretinous git, shaking their finger at another, from the anonymity of Twitter, scribing in their underpants. ‘I don’t gamble’ they say. Or the ubiquitous ‘I haven’t had a bet for 3 weeks’ – the stuff of anti gambling BOTS which fester the world wide web, influencing opinions
Gambling operators certainly deserved the rub they had from critics, during the era of fixed odds betting terminals in betting shops. Voracious machines they were. Combine that with voluminous advertising from gambling companies and it wasn’t hard to agree we had crossed the line here. Times have changed however, and I firmly believe the vast majority of gambling companies have cleaned up their act. Responsible gambling messages not only abound, but the message is actually evidencing results.
Affordability checks won’t save a single individual from problem gambling. Not one. But it will seem as if the regulator is ‘doing something.’ That may sound glib, but there is absolutely no evidence that such measures will have any meaningful effect, other than to shut down gambling for millions in the regulated market
Opposition to such plans, from bettors who refuse to provide data, quite reasonably, has not been considered by those who dreamed up such policies. They dismiss the rights of individuals to bet, if, that is, they refuse to heave up their financial data for all to see.
That would include, of course, government agencies. The taxman.
There have been some eye watering fines on gambling companies, imposed by the Commission, with regularity. I am surprised however that the level, and number of these. It hasn’t struck those dishing out fines with apparent glee, that perhaps the scale of ‘non compliance’ is down to human factors. Many of the companies fined have millions of customers, all subject to these new rules
How difficult would it be to spot the ones operators reasonably miss? Especially when one considers the new breed of ‘give me my money back, I was vulnerable’ fraudsters. Again ill considered by regulators.
Remarkably the incredibly vague basis for regulatory action for fines has not been challenged by operators before now. A Commission emboldened to continue with imposition of fines based enirely on their own ‘judgement call’ on whether an operator had been seen to do enough, because noone, as yet has marched them into the High Court for judiciary review.
The regulations are, quite simply, unworkable. A roadmap to fines and lost licenses
Take for example expensive ‘affordability background checking tools’ The commission now demands we pay for these. Equally they tell those same operators ‘not to rely on affordability background checking tools.’ Stupid, right? That’s because they absolutely know they don’t work.
Why wouldn’t you challenge infantile regulations? It’s simple, all the time you’re appealing enforcement, you’re sitting without a license. And the UKGC marks its own homework. It becomes a commercial decision for the operators. Pay up, and keep your license, or spend months fighting them in court, earning nothing. It makes better business sense to smile and pay up
In the short term, of course.
There are two basic codes in play here
Rule 1. Consumers are fully aware there’s no law mandating they have to accede to these checks
Rule 2. Consumers are fully aware there are black market alternatives, just a click of the mouse away
Under the proposals, we would have public officials looking into your spending habits, and determining how much is affordable in your gambling every month. The choice of the individual to spend, as he or she sensibly determine, is being marginalised. We are being given our pocket money by the state.
One can only imagine the mind-boggling calculations which will be required. The over estimation of areas of spend deemed for ‘good causes’ as set against spending on our addictions, it brings in the question of morality, with those against gambling determining whether another can, or should be gambling.
Is gambling somehow sufficiently different to warrant such actions by the state? Is it desirable, or just the slippery slope to officials to tell us how much we can spend on drink, going to the football, or other leisure activities. Once you allow these people control over your life, a dangerous precedent has been set. One should recall that of late credit cards were banned as a method of paying for your wagering. It was an important step to ensuring people only bet as they could afford. Highly successful messaging, encouraging people to control their spend is actively employed by operators, at great expense. It has lent itself to universally low problem gambling levels. Just 0.2% of the population
Why is such success being ignored? Why is the general public being told what they can, or can not spend their money on, and how much?
Has the gambling sector and its customers so failed that is deserving of such treatment? Well in an era of responsible gambling tools and pro-active interventions, I think the companies have been entirely successful implementing fair policies on its customers. Things are firmly moving in the right direction, I see little necessity for a Gambling Commission to intervene so destructively in people’s lives in order to be considered relevant. Especially in the eyes of a media, chasing sensationalist ‘oh dear me’ stories. There’s always a temptation by regulators to be making draconian moves in support of the cluck cluck brigade
As for the consumer? Why does the Comission imagine they’re going to happily share their payslips and annual accounts with operators? In the knowledge that information has to be pooled with other operators and government departments? So far, the answer is a resounding no from consumers. Many have simply turned off their gambling. Turnover in the industry down by not less than a third.
Regulators at the gambling commission have worked themselves into a self-interested approach. Revered by those who oppose gambling, despite clear and incontrovertible evidence that such measures simply don’t work. Most especially in the online world where companies have millions of customers. How many ‘intervention calls’ is it humanly possible to make? It is frankly astonishing that regulations have been set down which fail to respect the hearts and minds of ordinary people.
Commission thought is dominated by a “prevailing vision” which seals itself off from any empirical evidence that is inconsistent with that vision.
And if, as it should, the single customer wallet idea fails the information security test, individual customers will be tied to one operator for their spend, or avoid reasonable withdrawal of winnings.
Looking at the inability of so many companies, with impressive compliance departments, companies like Entain for example. Fined relentlessly by the gambling commission, for the same failures. Now under investigation by the Australian regulators for AML failings. At what point do governments or judges intervene to restore basic common sense?
It seems to me, that whilst these companies sold themselves to these new measures, because they saw a golden opportunity to collect, and profit thereby, from unprecedented levels of data from customers, have scored the biggest corporate own goal in history.
They signed up to measures without thought for the rightful views of their customers. They signed up to profit from the data. Only to find the measures they agreed to implement (in the absence of primary legislation by the way) as totally unworkable. The consequences for such companies indeed grave. Worse though for medium and small gambling operators. They cannot survive the slashing of their customer base and turnover in a scramble to ‘comply.’ The hefty cost attaching to affordability tools, which don’t work. Extra staffing. And let’s face it, clients simply saying no.
Depressingly as a small to medium scale operator, I’m painfully aware companies like my own, as so ill considered by a commission mired in dogma. Pressing a notably socialist agenda, because it keeps the impressive budgets, and funds their anti gambling chums. They make grand speeches telling everyone how many fines they’ve issued, treat the operators like children who have made no effort. All in transparent effort to placate the anti gambling community. Embarked on the destruction of the very industry they represent.
If I sound angry, or exasperated, it’s because I am. I’ve never seen an industry butchered so casually, by those who would see it die. The Gambling Commission undertook extensive consultation on affordability measures. 16,000 responded, overwhelmingly against the plans, and were ignored. People are having their gambling account closed, many who’s accounts have existed, without issue, for decades. Now they are either unwilling to provide the financial data, or simply unable to adequately prove their worth. The Commission pays no regard for the likely millions who will see their passtime dissappear in such way. Large gambling companies evidently profit by the data, selling the information on, and using the information gained to close unprofitable accounts. And the Commision ignores this. Very clearly the black market is the beneficiary of plans designed to throttle gambling in the UK, and they deny its importance. And many sports, notably horse and greyhound racing, will see their funding and sponsorship slashed. Industries which are part of our heritage. Yet they tally on.
I know how I feel about all this. I was recently asked by Bet Victor for a copy of my payslip. Whilst I haven’t had one of those for years, the prospect of sharing my worth with the operator’s staff in Gibraltar isn’t one I relish. I closed an account I’d had for three decades. There isn’t a single operator I would share my data with. Entain, for example retain your personal data for 7 years, ponder that one for a moment..
The information commissioners office offers no protection from companies domiciled abroad. Be aware all the soldiers are lined up against gamblers
I’d rather have my bets on the black. But for the time being, I’ve simply stopped betting.
We are daily bombarded with stories of ‘deaths’ – Death counters are the staple diet of media companies holding us fascinated, and keeping the advertisers happy. They profit from this crisis.
Who hasn’t been persuaded that we will end up like Italy? Or Spain? Countries vastly different than our own in the very make up, culture and attitude of their citizens
Would it surprise you to learn the average age of death in Italy at 78.5 years? Not a bad innings. What would they reasonably expect to live to in Italy? 82 years.
Of course we need to protect the NHS, and not allow them to get swamped. But in my opinion, and being the type of person only persuaded by hard data, I believe the new hospitals we are building should more than adequately be able to cope with the demand we should expect from this virus. And allow the country back to work
Some may take the view I take a rather cold approach to this matter. That you see yourself as decent human beings and every life must be preserved, if we can. I totally get your point.
But I believe the future of our children and those still young enough should be the ultimate determining factor of how we approach matters. Wrecking our economy to save people (two thirds, to one half would likely die this year anyway) is far too high a price to pay. In my opinion.
Where do I get such data? Well read on. What follows are not my words. However articles like this, informed, intelligent columns arguing against the total shut downs advocated by media types like Piers Morgan urgently give us pause for thought.
” The news today tells us that the UK has recorded 11658 cases of the Covid-19 virus and 578 deaths up from 9529 cases and 465 deaths yesterday and that is very sad, as any death is sad. But let’s try and put that into perspective.
The population of the UK as at 21 March 2020 is 67,786,872. The total deaths in the UK in 2019 was 530,857 By simple mathematics this equates to: 10,208 people die every week. 1,458 people die every day. Of the people that have died of Coronavirus, according to Professor Neil Fergusson (Imperial Collage, London.) 1/2 to 2/3 of those who have died would have died this year from their existing underlying medical conditions.
To date total number of people dying from Cv-19 is 578, which by Professor Fergusson’s calculation would mean that the Covid-19 as the prime cause of death would be between 192 and 289. The first officially recorded case of the Covid-19 in the UK was on 12/02/2020 that is 6 weeks and 2 days to 26 March 2020. This would equate to say 250 Covid-19 deaths above the 64,152 average deaths for this period.
If you care to go to the government’s Centres for Disease Control and Prevention website you will discover that from 1/10/2019 to 21/3/2020 Influenza estimates in the UK, are: Flu illnesses between 33,000,000 – 54,000,000: Flu medical visits between 18,000,000 – 26,000,000: Flu hospitalizations between 400,000 – 730,000: Flu deaths between 24,000-62,000. Did we crash the country for these?
You may have read about the Kings College Coronavirus Symptom reporting App. Which was launched on 24 March, within 24 hrs they had 650,000 responses. They calculated that about 10% of the responses indicated that the responders had had the Covid-19 virus and if extrapolated to the whole of the UK, this would mean that 6.5M people in the UK have already had the virus. Oxford have also done a study which, they say has revealed, that at least 500,000 people have already had the virus. This means that the Kings College app indicates that the death rate is .00000512% and the Oxford study indicates that the death rate is .0005%.
This is why I think the world has gone mad. We have closed down hundreds of thousands of small businesses many of whom will go bankrupt. Millions of employees are out of work and have no income. The suffering and anguish which a huge number of people are suffering is totally unnecessary.
Millions of people are isolating themselves with untold consequences for their mental health. The government has committed billions, possibly trillions that will have to be paid back, placing a huge burden on the next generation. The interest payable will probably end up costing more than we spend on the NHS. Taxes will sky rocket. The government have taken, totally unnecessary, draconian powers, of which Castro in Cuba would be envious. They are even encouraging us to spy on each other.
If we go back over history and see what the experts have predicted about all the recent epidemics and how wide of the mark most of them were and are. We saw the expert predictions that mad cow disease would kill 150,000 not the below 200 that have died so far. Why are we trusting any of them now. Early in the Coronavirus scare, a UK company offered the government Covid-19 testing kits at £6. If they had taken them up, none of this would be necessary.
Is all of this being done to keep me and others of my age alive for a few more years?
Crazy.
THIS IS PROJECT FEAR ON A HUGE SCALE. BORIS JOHNSON SHOULD START LEADING NOT FOLLOWING. WHEN HE IS BACK AT WORK NEXT WEEK, LET’S ALL GET BACK TO WORK ”
end.
I endorse this view, evidently from one of the vulnerable group. Public health and economic health go hand in hand and we urgently need to get back to work. Fine, some may view this as heartless, the work of statisticians. But we must look beyond the next few weeks to our very future. A future where thousands of businesses on which we depend go bankrupt. Surely you see the handouts cannot last? Consider what happens when the music stops? Who will be providing the jobs?
Build the extra hospitals and unlock the working people of Britain now Boris.
I hope you share or comment fairly with your considered views.
If one were to engineer global panic, resultant re-drawing the world order. Bringing down companies thought invincible. Reducing flag carriers and small airlines to bankruptcy within a few months, decimating the savings of private individuals and changing the landscape for our children, this is what you do
You engineer a virus. You make it such that it attacks the old, yet leaves the young relatively unscathed. You know healthcare systems around the planet aren’t geared up, nor have the investment to deal with the sudden demand for beds and ventilators
You employ a few media types to spread the message. You know the news networks will run with it constantly. Scream headlines that have people panic buying. All the time adding value to those news networks. Headlines just like ‘VIRUS PANDEMIC, GLOBAL EMERGENCY’
Let’s get one thing right – Piers Morgan – fuels panic. It wouldn’t surprise me to find many of the current government policies respecting his outspoken views. In similar vein, the ‘pandemic’ is excellent for the bottom line of Sky News and similar media outlets
Within weeks Western Governments, under pressure from the media shut down all essential business, and more. They bankrupt themselves trying to avoid anarchy. Coming up with schemes to fund people’s lives on borrowed money. Moving the problem on all the time. Deferring the strain on hospital beds and people’s finances.
Some countries, and some people have a lot to gain from the panic of people in the West. Not least it seems, at the very least in profile a certain Piers Morgan.
Eastern Governments don’t view the loss of human life, even if inevitable, with the same gravitas. Can anyone recall the numbers of deaths being mentioned in Russia? China reports considerably lower infection and death rates. Westerners only discuss Italy. Not Norway, or even the UK, which has a very low number of deaths at 233 (at the time of writing) That will rise, and potentially significantly, but will we consider if they’re ‘extra deaths’ – or not? We’re morbidly fascinated with what is happening in the country with the oldest population in the world.
Where will our irrational fear of death lead us? If what we end up with is worse, what on earth is our plan here?
Eastern Governments will come out of this crisis very well. And most certainly in control of our finances. Whilst we discuss ever worsening scenarios, they’re registering substantially less cases.
Check this interesting, recent table, showing the source of infection, the most populous nation on earth registering a very significant slow down
The behaviour of Western Governments is entirely predictable. People in the our world view the idea of death by natural causes, as entirely unacceptable. We see ourselves as decent because we try to save as many lives as we can. Even if those lives are infirm. Even if as a society we absolutely know we are living a lot longer. Even if we appreciate there are far too many of us on this planet at the current time. The evidence of the change to our planet’s weather is global testament to our success as a species, not only in propogating ourselves, but in surviving longer. We’re not under threat of extinction any time soon.
It is, for this very reason, that our healthcare systems are constantly under strain. We cannot cope with an ever increasing elderly population.
Western Governments will fare very badly from the resultant of shutting down all of its business to ‘save lives. ‘ It is fully prepared to bankrupt itself. It gently suggests we should be prepared for deaths, because it appears at this time, with no cure, that the vulnerable unfortunately will likely fare worst.
What we will we leave our children? This is what concerns me. Saving the vulnerable whilst we casually sacrifice the future for the young. Destroying the savings of millions of families across the nation. How can we fund the ventilators, Doctors and Nurses required to help deal with this problem in the absence of cash? Why do we risk the anarchy of the general public- as we witness daily in supermarkets? Where’s the evidence of that famous ‘stiff upper lip’ there? The idiots rule the aisles, sitting on their loo rolls. We have a glut of morons who think we will run out of bloody toilet paper!
The oddity of this particular virus? It lags an awful long way behind other examples such as good old influenza. Which has killed us routinely for decades in tens of thousands. Every year. Isn’t there the possibility, given the numbers who die from the flu, that we are being terribly precipitous? Will Covid kill more than flu – yes it might short head it. But where is the annual lock down for flu?
I’m no scientist, but I have listened to various experts and each one carries a different message. All agree on one thing. We are told to wash our hands. Distance ourselves. Very sensible.
Lock down. Hmm, well I fully understand if you fall into the vulnerable type. So you should. But as principle I fundamentally disagree with policy that leaves us with so much less when it’s over. I believe the simple answer lies in people’s behaviour. Keep your distance and wear a mask. Change how you behave not hide behind the sofa and emerge to no job
Of course we all must accept the savings of many will be demolished. You don’t get paid in many cases to sit at home.
We move the problem along. Eventually we will all emerge, and when we do the nightmare for the health service recommences.
In the meantime – the governments can’t test. Because everyone’s after PPE and testing kits at the same time.
And whilst we successfully bankrupt the businesses we’ve always depend upon, what do we leave behind for our children, and our young? We’ve already shown we are prepared to sacrifice the academic efforts of everyone who has attended school for the last decade by cancelling exams
I believe strongly that public health – and economic health are vital. That the solution is not to so casually bastardise entire economies. The entire shutdown by Western Governments to keep the Piers Morgan and Kaye Burley types might appear the only solution to some, but it is a fundamental error.Where do you go once you’ve wrecked not only the economy, but the livelihoods and savings millions built up? Where’s the tough decision then?
People hate the stark reality, which appears to be, at this time, we are moving the problem along with one purpose in mind. Safeguarding some order in the NHS. However at what catastrophic price?
You cannot pick up the reins of many of the essential companies we depend upon when this is all over. The structure of many of these companies, with so much cost, doesn’t forecast for several months as a non trading enterprise.
Business that can operate with minimal risk – must be encouraged. We should throw overbearing health and safety ideals out the window. We screen, we test, we do what we can- but we continue to function as we can. We trade lives we can save, for economic health, not those we cannot.
I cannot speak with any authority on other business, except my own. So you will forgive me for using this example. I believe as many companies that can continue to function, with minimal risk, should do so. And maintain some sort of fiscal order.
British Racing, my industry, is in shutdown. It stands alone in many racing authorities who operate a closed door policy quite successfully. It could contribute to the finances of the country right now, as it always has, to the tune of hundreds of millions a year. It could keep those who work within the industry in employment, rather than ruin the same.
It operates on huge racetracks, surely segregation of workers is childplay for experienced racing managers! Millions depend on the sport for essential mental health. Their well being. A sense of some normality. Instead, in standard ‘knee jerk’ reaction to criticism of the Cheltenham Festival going ahead (another poor move) it has closed its doors. The executives consulted a couple of powerless Labour MP’s, who claim to bat for racing, and they recommended we should all be out of work, and go cap in hand to Government for help.
Ambulances aren’t under strain, although we use private St Johns in many cases. And if a jockey needs hospital treatment? Then we enforce an appropriate lock down of that jockey. Ask them then do they want to work?
The closure, based on excessively weak arguments about adding to the burden of public health, appeared more of a statement, than that of an authority bent on doing the best for the sport, not by closure, but by determined organising of a closed door policy, which is well within our compass
That, in my view, is totally irresponsible, of everyone involved in the decision.
In conclusion, it appears three things that must happen if we are to come out of this with any semblance of our lives prior to the virus
Follow the sensible distancing, hand washing measures being advocated of course
Accept that economic health cannot be sacrificed to save the vulnerable.
Test everyone. Right now. Find out who has it, and who has not. People moving about for any reason need screening
For those of a certain vintage there are moments in golf which stick out in the mind. Remember Doug Sanders missing a two foot putt for the Open in 1970, and Scott Hoch from a similar distance for the Masters in 1989 thus earning himself the soubriquet ‘Hoch, the Choke.’ How backers of both men must have cursed.
Arnold Palmer blew a seven stroke lead at the 1966 US Open with nine to play and who can forget Greg Norman’s back nine collapse at Augusta in 1996 from which Nick Faldo took full advantage? And probably the saddest of all was Jean van der Velde committing his very own public version of hari kari at the last in the 1999 Open. He could have afforded a double bogey, but instead suffered a total meltdown. And that after taking his shoes and socks off to try to play from the stream.
There are more recent examples of major blowouts too. In 2016 Jordan Spieth turned for home and an historic back to back Masters at his mercy with a five stroke lead. But at Rae’s Creek he twice went into the water for a quadruple bogey, gifting the tournament to Danny Willett.
The odds on any of the above happening are remote. But happen they did and such examples and numerous others have helped to boost the appeal of golf as a betting medium. After football and racing it is probably now the third most popular for the armchair punter. And for good reason.
The range of bets and options are numerous. Golf betting has increased significantly in popularity in recent years. This is partly down to the interest generated by emerging young talents but also the potential value it offers bettors. Know here to look and there’s some great value to be found.
Fifty years ago when Sanders imploded the market was restricted really to win or each way. Now there’s a blizzard of bets to choose from and a welter of data to help the decision making process.
Bookies love it because it appeals to an ABC1 audience, there’s a tournament somewhere in the world most weekends, it gets wall to wall coverage and the audience is captive for six hours at a time for the real aficionado. Tournaments reach their denouement over a weekend when people have time to relax and want to engage.
Understanding how to bet on golf is a lot easier than many people think. The most common form of golf is stroke play but there is also match play – this is when two or more golfers score each hole individually and the game is decided by winning the most holes.
In terms of golf betting, the main competitions of interest are the four yearly majors (The Masters, US Open, The Open and PGA Championship), as well as PGA Tour events, European Tour events and the Ryder Cup.
Knowledge of the sport is merely a starting point when learning how to bet on golf. The next step is to understand the type of markets available and how to find valuable betting opportunities. Study general form, course form, the stats and avoid inexperienced players.
Accumulating knowledge of how certain players play and the course layout for a particular tournament is essential. Different players are better suited to particular courses depending on their strengths and weaknesses and will, therefore, perform better in different tournaments.
For instance the big hitting Bubba Watson and the aforementioned Spieth suit the longer courses such as Augusta and Quail Hollow as they are longer with their driver. In contrast, players like Phil Mickelson with a hot as mustard short game suit courses like Pebble Beach which require a better mastery of irons and wedges.
Look at statistics like scoring average and driving accuracy as these are good indicators of performance. However for a more advanced approach to golf betting, strokes gained statistics, greens in regulation and fairways in regulation are much more useful.
Additionally, scrambling percentage – missing greens in regulation but making a par or better highlights a player’s ability to recover after an error. Top 10 finishes can be used to gauge consistency.
Betting on an outright winner is without doubt the most popular market when someone is looking to bet on golf online. Sometimes backing a favourite outright is simply just the way to go in any sport, even in golf.
But when tournament fields are made upwards of 140 players, it often makes sense to back a golfer in the each way market. It can certainly offer great value especially with bookmakers paying 1/5 the odds down to seven places.
Take the winners of the 2019 Majors: Shane Lowry 100-1 at the Open, Gary Woodland 80-1 US Open, Tiger Woods 14-1 for the Masters and Brooks Koepka 10-1 to win US PGA. Some people made a tidy profit.
Away from the ‘mainstream’ there are the top 10 and top 20 markets. This is a useful section to back golfers who are steady but who rarely threaten the top of the leaderboard.
Another way to make money betting on golf is to focus on match bets. People might think they can find a certainty albeit at short prices in a three ball. It could be the players are on offer at 4/6, 5/4 and 11/4. Even 4/6 could offer value to a big punter. There is huge market for that.
How about top nationality betting? Or holes-in-one which seem to be getting more frequent as players are getting more and more accurate and aggressive as equipment improves and standards get higher.
The final statistic that is always a must – a player’s putting ability. As the old adage goes, ‘driving for show, putting for dough’. If a golfer struggles to putt due to a poor technique or suffers previous mental scarring or the yips under the Sunday afternoon pressure, then he isn’t going to win you money.
Then there’s in-play betting – appealing to the male City type who loves the adrenaline rush of deals. It’s great fun, you can bet golf live and the results can be highly profitable. This sector is growing. The amounts matched on the Open are thought to be as much as £30m. One expert described it as like a stock market based on a moving golf tournament. Effectively there’s a market on every stroke in golf a way of betting on every shot of the ball.
Let’s imagine in a non-Corona virus era the Masters was taking place next month. Where and what should we look for? Past form used to be a more reliable guide to a player’s chances. Jack Nicklaus won it eight times, Tiger Woods four times including last year’s heart-warming comeback victory, and Arnold Palmer four times in eight years way back when. Mickleson, Nick Faldo and Gary Player each have three Green Jackets.
But if you take the results from the past decade or so, attempting to find the winner of the Masters is more problematic. That is why the bookmakers love it and why golf has become such a popular betting platform.
So where would be start? Maybe with Rory McIlroy who some believe really is getting better with age? Some though would put a line through his chances if he’d started as expected as 6/1 favourite. Why though back a player who hasn’t won a Major for six years and needs a Green Jacket to complete a Grand Slam which in itself lends huge added pressure. There’s therefore no value in backing McIlroy.
But there might be in him to be first round leader at say 20-1. He has form there so it provides value and is an increasingly popular type of betting. He could make a fast start due to an early morning tee off when weather permitting he will get the best of conditions and low winds, fresh greens and no leaderboard pressure.
Next step? Start looking for value for players who are in form but you’d do better to rule out players who have been injured; this year such as Koepka and Dustin Johnson. Tommy Fleetwood might be 20-1 but ask yourself why would back him when he has only won one tournament in three years and never a major.
Better surely someone like John Rahm? He is a multiple winner and consistent. So is Justin Thomas. This is key. Jack Nicklaus once said: ‘When you are playing golf you must win regularly to give yourself the confidence to win Majors. “ Then look at up and coming players and who could win and are therefore are at a more fancied price. Into that category would come Zander Schauffele, Patrick Cantlay, Bryson DeChambeau.
Finally we should not forget the big Daddy of them all, the Ryder Cup. It’s another serious attraction. Europe has still got the strength in depth and ability to win it more often. If looking today at the 2020 event you can get 6/4 on Europe winning the next iteration while America are 8/11 and albeit the USA had home advantage. In a two horse race and on past form Europe’s odds look fairly generous to some punters.
The debate about the whip, especially in jumps racing, is one of the most important issues the sport has to confront. For some it is an existential threat. It has pitched traditionalists against reformers, heretics against the believers.
The focus on equine welfare and all that that entails – with fatalities high up the list too – will be on the Cheltenham Festival next week like never before. The scrutiny will be intense.
Remember it was two years ago that six horses died at the Festival, three in the Grand Annual. The images of tired horses being whacked in the four mile amateur’s race run on soft ground and when only four finished triggered an outcry.
Paul and Clare Rooney who are among the sport’s biggest British owners, then announced they would boycott Cheltenham – albeit only temporarily as it turned out – on welfare grounds.
It led to a review and a marked shift change in public perception which racing is only now starting to come to terms with.
At the prompting of government responsibility for its ultimate resolution has been taken out of the hands of the BHA, and falls to a new independent Horse Welfare Board compromising experts as well as laymen and women.
Its first report landed last month. It is clear as day that stronger penalties for misuse of the whip appear to be a certainty by the autumn. “The overall number of offences (over 500 in 2018) remains unnecessarily high and the current penalties do not provide an adequate deterrent effect,” the board concluded.
In its wake, the BHA has announced a three-month consultation with racing insiders and the public on changes to the whip rules, with a view to deciding on and implementing changes by the end of October.
The number of whip offences fell to an all-time low of 410 last year, less than half the number from 2011. However, the board pointed to concern on the subject from the public and politicians.
It said racing had to demonstrate “a proactive, positive direction of travel in relation to the whip, taking steps to eliminate misuse and leading any discussions around the future removal of the whip for encouragement”.
Far deeper questions are also being raised. Should that consultation include questions about whether a horse should be disqualified when its rider breaks the whip rules and also whether the whip should be banned as a means of encouraging horses in races?
Could punishments for whip misuse even be extended to the trainer and owner who had employed a jockey found to be in breach?
Barry Johnson, a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is the chair of the HWB. “This is a matter of public trust.”
The prevailing thought seems to be that racing needs to address these issues and be accountable if society is to continue to give them a ‘social license to operate.’ Well that is taking it too far.
Racing maybe facing a King Canute moment where the end result is the sport being swamped in a tide of public indignation.
But it needs to draw breath and compose itself and come out with persuasive and reasoned responses. Emotion must not be allowed to replace hard fact and cold analysis. For instance when presented with the evidence from the BHA the Rooneys changed their minds and good on them.
We need to get to the core of fundamental questions: Why do we use the whip – for safety encouragement, or an element of both? Where and when did it start being used? Does it instigate a fight or flight reflex? Does it inflict pain?
If it doesn’t, as most contend, then it’s not cruel then why shouldn’t we continue to use it? And why call it the whip which has such negative violent connotations?
Perhaps a controlled experiment and research would help. If a horse responds to the whip, is it because it focuses them? Does it make them try harder? Or simply stop?
Would we be better off without the whip, so we have lots of hands and heels riding, and maybe carry the whip only for safety?
Do horses go faster with the whip? If not then why do we use them? Especially as it’s always at the end of a race when they are all going slower because they are tired.
As one expert put it to me: “I’m sure if you had hit Seb Coe towards the end of a race he probably wouldn’t have been able to go any faster.”
So many questions and as yet too few answers.
Mark Souster
Mark Souster has been the racing writer at The Times since 2016. Before that he was rugby correspondent. In that role he was named sports journalist of the year by the Society of Editors and won sports scoop of the year for his revelations about England’s 2011 World Cup campaign. He has twice been nominated for sports news correspondent of the year.
In a boardroom in Birmingham, they came up with this plan for proposed Gamstop arrangements. Why should you care? Because it’s a dangerous intervention into people’s basic human rights.
Read on. Here’s how it goes..
– Back 3 losers in a row
– Self exclude for 5 years
– Wake up the next morning to find all your accounts closed in the regulated market.
– Decide, as usual, you didn’t mean it. After all this is how you’ve behaved for the last 6 years when you’ve lost, right? Shut one account down, pick up another elsewhere..
– Ring the Gambling Commission. They tell you you cannot return to any licensed operator under their rules. No, it doesn’t matter if your circumstances have changed, or you’ve simply changed your mind. You cannot change your mind.
– Set up your new betting account with Russia Bet
Having a little chuckle? Well it isn’t actually meant tongue in cheek. You see this is actualy in planning. The plain truth is people like to gamble. 46% of us gambled last year, in one form or another. That’s circa 30 million people. ‘Surveys’ tell us, however, that there are 0.7% of those who gamble who are defined as problem gamblers. That’s 210,000. Actual data on problem gambling levels aren’t currently available. This isn’t to say problem gamblers don’t exist, of course they do, in every addictive product – and they do deserve protection from themselves from the excesses of operators. However, I feel the focus as entirely disproportionate to the scale of the problem, and forgetting the enjoyment many clearly derive from gambling.
Society appears more and more focused on minority. Check out the toilets in the Old Vic 🙂
.
So self exclusion could be argued to benefit 210 thousand more or less, and be of minimal interest to the residual 29.8 million, who enjoy their gambling and keep things under reasonable self control. Sorry to bandy statistics about. However we do need to protect that element as much as we can, from themselves. That’s not in question here.
So the Gambling Commission will mandate that all licensed operators respect that exclusion order, and no company, in the regulated market will be able to do business with that customer.
Insofar as that is the wishes of the customer – I agree with that ideal. But what if he changes his mind? Should that person have the right to return to gambling of their own free wil? In the same vein perhaps of a person who has stopped smoking to start up again?
Well, in that case, the UK Gambling Commission will mandate that the original ‘term’ the customer sets themselves has to be respected. That’s a divergence from the well intentioned stop order at the outset. In the first case the UKGC is enforcing a person’s free will on business. In the second, that same regulator is directly infringing that person’s human rights to change their mind. This proposal has no precedent.
As an operator of considerable life experience in gambling, I find most individuals currently exclude because they’re annoyed with losses or fancy a pause. That’s because the current system allows them to exclude with one operator only. It’s a weak scheme. However once you start banning people who have changed their mind, for whatever the reason, will have the causal effect of sending UK gamblers to the black market. This cannot be the sensible or proportionate approach.
The Commission will argue they ‘need to protect people from themselves.’ A noble ideal, but you’re effectively controlling their lives. Trying to stop an addict betting with a blunt tool. A wide net. It won’t work, because you cannot tell folk how to run their lives.
This is a dangerous stance for a sensible regulator to even contemplate in a society driven by a click of the mouse.
Ever had too much to drink and said to yourself ‘never again?’ Imagine if that became a reality in gambling. Where would you bet next? After all gambling is a highly popular passtime. Imagine trying to stop alcoholics from drinking or chain smokers from smoking. The United States thought it could stop people drinking. How did that go?
This view is bolstered by a group of MP’s, who’s forum delights in a new breed of ‘experts’ in the behaviour of gamblers.They are, of course, all drawing wages. Their Doctorates, if they have one, are not in the field of gambling. This is entirely relevant, when these people set themselves up as experts.
This ‘cross party betting and gaming group.’ some of whom involved have questionable political motives, are currently examining gambling. I’ve seen the guest list. You don’t build a kitchen if you’re not going to cook a meal. I’ve seen the guest list. ‘Expert’ follows expert with their ideas on how many problem gamblers there are, and what to do about them. What’s clearly not represented, are the 29.8 million of us who don’t have an issue with a bet. We’re not represented.
It’s critical, for example, to understand how many people who exclude right now, who return to gambling shortly after, of their own free will. And in saying that, some of you will be of the view that the weakest of us will return to gambling – when they should not. It’s a valid point. However, a blanket ban on all who do exclude, is a child’s manner of dealing with the issue. These people need our help, via training and education
And the operators should foot the bill. Let’s be clear on that.
These same MP’s want more schools, hospitals, police on our streets. Noble ideals, with bills attached. Last year gambling contributed 3 billion pounds to the economy, a figure that rises year on year. Start banning it, and you’re presenting the golden taxation to another state. A blanket ban makes no fiscal sense and breaches people’s human rights. It will predictably fail.
. There is another way.
.
I disagree with plans which negatively impact the many, to assist so few. It seems to me as a society we are ill prepared to stand up for ourselves and demand those that need help – seek help. Instead we silently watch Governments introduce more and more politically correct rules to control our loves. When did we become so sheep like?
.
Shopping with Amazon is easy. A click of the mouse and your parcel is delivered from a depot in the UK. Yet it is an order placed in another sovereign state, and taxed abroad. Opening your account with an unregulated operator, with all the ills that entails, is quite simply, a click of that same mouse
It is offshore black market companies which will benefit from excluded customers who change their mind and are told ‘no’ by a regulator. Forcing people onto the black market, should not be the by product of protecting that element of problem gamblers. We should ask them to help themselves.
.
Train, educate, intervene positively. These are the answers to the issue of problem gambling. Prohibition shouldn’t be entering the starting stalls.
.If the Gambling Commission mandate operators should obey people’s wishes, they too should appreciate there’s an equal requirement on them to respect the same, if an individual decides he wants to gamble again.
If I had to guestimate the percentage of folk, whining on social media about being restricted by Bookmakers these days, I’d put the number, who turn an annual profit from their gambling, in excess of 90%. So the conclusion is these folk want betting firms to operate their accounts when they know they would lose. The stuff of fantasy.
To people old enough to remember doing their conkers to those same bookies ever since they left primary school, it’s little wonder they complain so vociferously. The attacks on the gambling industry (I don’t mean gaming here, which cannot lose!) border on vitriol. If you lost your shirt to bookies, and have now turned the tables on the same – and find yourself factored? Well I accept the grapes must be on the sour side. I would comment, however, that the battle back then was fairly won between punter and Bookmaker. There was little antipathy. Accounts were rarely subject to any restriction. Markets were sustainable. Casinos were not online. Bookmakers made no attempt to offer markets in Challenger tennis matches, Chinese soccer or European handball.
There’s a difference these days. And it’s little understood by those who haven’t embraced the era of Exchanges. You can now guarantee yourself a profit, sitting in your underpants going blind staring at Betfair and price comparison sites- for the lucrative, and simple, arb.
.
What is arbing? Put simply, take 7/1 your selection from the Bookmaker when the exchange has suddenly contracted to 13/2 or even less, lay it back on the exchange and lock in a guaranteed profit. There are more complex methods than this, but the outcome remains the same. Provided the bookie continues to lay you wagers which exceed the exchange odds, you’ve found yourself a lucrative, tax free, risk free income. All the better- you don’t need a gambling commission license whilst you operate your backing and laying business.
Until the bookie notices that every bet you give them was laid at a price greater than was available on Betfair. That’s when the toys smartly leave the pram. You’re operating a business, locking in an income off of the Bookmaker, not the exchange. Because the arber reaches for the bookie first. And the exchange always represents ‘worse value’ in this relationship. For this reason money traders tend to open several accounts, in different names. Female online accounts routinely used as conduits for money traders. Bet365 identified one of those, rather infamously after ‘she’ had won a million pounds off of them.
.
For Geoff Banks Online, we notice these characters when our system highlights the constant trades on selections which are greater than exchange odds at the point of sale. In other words, we could have laid the same bet for less. That’s the constant, the arber will only trade when the bookie is considerably out of line. For this reason, the money traders offer the Bookmaker spectacularly poor value. They utilise specialist tools to identify when Online firms odds are out of line with the constant liquid exchange markets.
What’s changed? Well, you can’t lose operating this simple scheme. Scream your bollocks off if you wish, but everyone knows the game is up, except you.
Money traders rarely play in major sporting events. The World Cup, Cricket finals, major soccer games, Cheltenham Festival races. The markets are steady – and well defined. They’re fiddling about in Italian Division 2 football. A maiden at Southwell. The sub markets firms offer on an event, such as first goalscorers, where they’re ahead of the Bookie is behind on information as to an injured striker being replaced.
For this reason, I take the view these people aren’t the type of customers I view as genuine. If you’re not interested in a bet in the Champions League final, or the Gold Cup, you’re hardly a punter – are you? This is the defined difference between Trader – and Punter. Unashamedly we serve the needs of the latter. Win or lose. I don’t believe in offering an unlicensed individual, who pays no taxes, and adopts no risk on what he does a living.
There are a few traders think they’re excessively clever in being able to ‘beat the book.’ Remember for years they were as muggy as everyone else. They take to Twitter in blessed anonymity to tell a bored community what geniuses they are, how gutless betting firms have become. Said individuals make money on a particularly small scale, or trade so poorly they actually show a loss. No self respecting business would make a giant profit, and then scream at those who feed his income.
Common to all Twitter rants on the subject, ‘bookies only want mugs.’ Of course said remarks go a long way to bigging up self-worth. No Sir, Bookies don’t relish battling against someone utilising specialist trading software to turn a guaranteed profit. If you’re one of those who whines about this on social networking, you must be some kind of fool. Business is operated, in all sectors, for profit. Amazon don’t trade a lamp for less than they bought it for. Would you be complaining that they seeked to make profit from you?
.
Modern betting companies do have the necessary skill-sets to build algorithms to track exchange odds, and never offer a price greater then the same. There are several pitfalls to this apparently simple solution. One – competing with Supergiant Bet365, who spend a great deal of time offering odds greater than those available on exchanges. Few companies consciously bet to a loss by design.. normally such actions would be properly scrutinised in my fantasy world
.
Second, offering exchange odds would see you in the poor house right quick. Gambling companies have colossal expenses and couldn’t bet near to those of the exchange and make profit. Nor is the symbiotic relationship of place markets mirrored on the exchange.
.
Third, the huge range of markets available would dwarf exchange offerings. Whilst main markets on Betfair might capture some liquidity, most of the sub markets offer loose change to bet on. Typically a Bookmaker offers a far wider array of markets, thereby accepting extra risk, and much bigger bets across their markets.
.
Finally, and perhaps notably, whilst bookies tend to parallel exchange odds, the average lay to lose in firms like William Hill wold regularly trump six figures. Whilst the same selection on Betfair would typically offer a user £20, or less, at the same odds. Exchange liquidity haa all but collapsed – for by that, it still governs betting odds.
.
In my Company we find ourselves battling daily with the aforementioned line trackers. Some when factored take it on the chin, pack up their various accounts in their Sisters name, and move on to the next firm. We adopt a hands on approach to every account. The system might identify an arber, but we always take a good look at the range of bets a customer offers us, before we might have to factor someone. We are well aware of the criticism, fairly levelled at gambling firms, that some decisions are ‘knee jerk.’
.
What is useful in life is a bit of understanding of each other’s position. The ethos of my company is to offer a tailored betting solution to those who want the value of big betting, with the personal nature of a smaller firm than Skybet. If you like to ring your bet in, or have a question, we will answer the phone within 4 rings and won’t be asking you to tell us what the mileage was on your first car.
We cannot compete head on with major gaming companies, bringing in profits gained in grey and yes, black markets abroad, to unashamedly bolster their presence in the UK, whilst the regulator looks away, and afford the money traders a living too.We will offer a bespoke online betting experience. A clever mobile app, and a slick website. We will listen to our customers when they tell us what they want our software to do for them.
So to the traders, I hope you will respect my candour here and give us a respectful swerve. You may not like my forthright style in explaining to those interested in the topic, why we have to factor some accounts. Geoff Banks Online stand alone as an independant in offering such as best odds guaranteed with our weekly deposit bonus scheme, and fairly laying our customers a bet. Let us get on with offering that level of service to those who want a bet on the cup final, or the Grand National without restriction, or penalty, and you take your line tracking activities to Bet365. No firm deserves your business more than they do.
Remember, when the fun stops, you’ve probably gone to bed..
Now here’s a couple of links to our mobile apps, for the ‘genuine’ sporting customer. Because we do promise to make you feel welcome and reward your custom.
Geoff Banks Online Reports 