Justice for punters

More information & links on the ongoing consultations due to impact UK based bettors

Posted on by Peter Ling

I wanted to share a few important updates on the email I sent a few weeks back about proposed new ‘affordability’ checks on UK based bettors.

If you missed that article, you can read it on the SBC Blog – something I urge those of you based in the UK who bet regularly to do as the implications are massive.

1. Shorter Gambling Commission Consultation – 9th Feb Deadline

The first thing to mention is that following my initial email on this topic, the UK Gambling Commission have released a significantly simplified consultation you can fill in – available via this link.

This consultation is not only shorter but more to the point without the jargon and should take no more than 15 minutes to fill in.

Time is ticking on this though and you have until the 9th Feb to submit your feedback so don’t delay!

2. Horseracing Bettors Forum Submission

For those of you looking for some further inspiration on talking points to consider as part of your submission, Colin Hord, chair of the Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF) shared with me a summary of the key points they had put forward.

I have copied them below as they get to the heart of the issue and why in their opinion, affordability limits are not necessary.

In summary the HBF believe that affordability checks should not be introduced. The main reasons being as follows:

  • The Government has announced a review of the Gambling Act 2005 in which it wants to assess affordability checks: HBF believes that introduction of such checks is a matter for Parliamentary debate and ultimate decision by the Government.
  • Any checks will be easily avoided by using different online bookmakers, using proxy accounts set up by friends and family, betting on the high street or the racecourse in anonymity and potentially moving bettors to illegal bookmakers online and/or unregulated overseas operators, resulting in a loss of tax and levy income.
  • HBF believe that there needs to be a demarcation between betting on horseracing (and other sports) and online casino gaming, i.e. games of chance (roulette, slots, virtual racing etc.). The odds for a horse or sports event vary and depend on the opinion of the bookmaker’s odds compiler, whereas casino gaming is fixed odds betting in which the house has a built-in advantage. The horseracing bettor operates under a different risk framework to the gaming customer who is focused on the quick adrenaline buzz of the spin of a slot or the turn of the roulette wheel.
  • For many people, betting on horseracing is an enjoyable pastime, because, with time and effort, the player can develop skill that enables them to take a profit or at least lose an easily affordable amount. Horseracing betting for many is a cerebral activity that is challenging and enjoyable with an aspirational element of deriving a profit. A loss of betting revenue will have significant impact on UK horseracing.
  • The proposed limits are extremely low and would likely include small stakes players who encounter a losing run. Even those betting £5 stakes would have a 20% chance of losing £100 in a month if betting horses to win at 6/1. Betting Exchange and Spread Betting customers could also fall into affordability checks if they have liabilities of greater than £100 per month and have to deposit additional funds even though they may not have lost. Similarly, the ante-post bettor may be creating an ante post portfolio for an event that does not take place that month.
  • We also believe that there should be a reduction in cross fertilisation of casino games with those who bet on sports and horseracing and that steps should be taken to make players more aware of the house edge in casino games.
  • HBF believe that Operators should be putting the welfare of their customers at the centre of their businesses just like an airline puts safety at the heart of their business. Safer gambling tools that have recently been required should be evaluated before affordability checks are imposed. The operators should create tools and procedures that can identify those that have, or are likely to have, gambling problems. After all, the Operators can easily spot those bettors who show skill!

3. SBC Podcast On This Topic

Finally, to explain more on this subject, in the latest episode of the SBC podcast, I spoke with Brian Chappell from the Justice For Punters website on this consultation and its potential impact on UK based bettors moving forward.

Brian has been at the forefront of many discussions with several stakeholders within the betting industry and so is ideally placed to shine light on the issues at hand and how important it is for as many UK bettors to take part in the consultation.

As part of the podcast we also explore whether staking and affordability limits will be introduced as part of a solution to tackling those with a gambling disorder and why the UK bookmaking industry is in such a mess due to its structure of restricting winners and encouraging losers.

You can listen and download this episode via the links below OR simply search ‘Smart Betting Club’ wherever you get your podcasts

Spotify

Google

Apple


That’s all for today,

Peter Ling
Smart Betting Club Editor

2 must-watch video interviews on a minimum bet guarantee & bookie restrictions

Posted on by Peter Ling

For those of you following the ongoing topic of bookmaker fairness and a right to bet without restrictions (AKA Minimum Bet Guarantees), then I want to point you in the direction of 2 excellent video interviews published recently by the bookmaker, Star Sports.

Firstly, we have the ‘ordinary punter’ viewpoint with 3 fascinating interviews with Brian Chappell (AKA Jimmy Justice) from the Justice For Punters pressure group on the fantastic work he and his organisation have undertaken on behalf of bettors.

Across the series of 3 videos, Brian discusses the need for Minimum Bet Guarantees and why he feels this is the best way forward for punters looking to ‘get on’ with traditional bookmakers. He also reveals plenty on the negative tactics some bookies and casinos have employed and continue to employ to frustrate punters. Brian and the other volunteers at Justice For Punters have also been able to get some very high profile stories on bookies behaving badly covered by the likes of the BBC and the Times (a front page story no less) and credit must go to Simon Nott of Star Sports for the interview.

Brian’s approach to gambling and demand for ‘fairness’ is in direct contrast to that from another very recent Star Sports interviewee – Skybet head honcho, Richard Flint, who in 3 more videos tackles a series of hot betting topics including why Skybet don’t accommodate winning punters.

By my reckoning, this is the first time a bookie CEO has openly stated they don’t wish to take bets from winning punters as part of their business model. They only want losers.

Whilst I certainly don’t agree with many things Richard says, especially when it comes to why such a profitable business as Skybet can’t afford to accommodate the tiny proportion of gamblers that win, his willingness to engage on the topic should be noted and encouraged.

Keeping Up The Min Bet Guarantee Pressure

Both Richard and Brian’s interviews are important as they keep the conversation going on the topic of Minimum Bet Guarantees and the need for all punters to have the right to get a fair bet on.

Only last year a meeting was held in parliament to discuss the problem of restrictions (amongst other topics) and it’s a story that is continually being covered by the mainstream media who like most of us, find it hard to understand why it’s not a level playing field for all.

Richard Flint’s firm – Skybet are in fact one of three bookies currently trialing Minimum Bet Guarantees with the public – although it is Bet Victor who are leading the charge on this front with the most extensive offer. Their ‘Bet Guarantee’ markets are available for every UK/Ireland race, where you can win up to £500 from 11am onwards backing both to win and each-way.

According to a recent article published in EGR Intel, Bet Victor are persevering with the Guarantee despite some ‘bad business’, specifically surrounding those taking advantage of bad each way races. This in turn has led to them at times offering different odds in their ‘Guaranteed Bet’ markets compared to those on offer via their traditional racing markets. A move that makes sense, especially if it leads towards the long-term adoption of such Guarantee Bet markets by Bet Victor and other firms – many of whom will be watching the results of their trial very closely indeed.

For more on the current situation with Minimum Bet Laws, Brian Chappell has also written an interesting Justice For Punters update on exactly where we stand from his perspective, which outlines several points including questions on the legality of restrictions.

For those of you interested in this topic, I will continue to keep you in the loop on all major developments including any changes or new additions to the Min Bet Guarantee ranks.

If you want to join in the conversation, you can find SBC on twitter (@sbcinfo) and you can also read a full lowdown on the 3 main Min Bet Guarantees here.

Best Regards
Peter Ling

Smart Betting Club Owner and Founder

Pete_HeadShot_SMall