Problem gambling online Problem gambling online
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1

    More fingers than teeth

    OwlHoot - scorchio!

    OwlHoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,352

    Default Problem gambling online

    Heard the tail end of a report about this on Radio 4 while driving into clientco.

    Surely the solution is to require regular users of online gambling sites to pay a large deposit, say £1000, and pay for their flutters out of this.

    Thay way they'd be (a) Unable to participate if they were practically skint, which many problem gamblers habitually are, and (b) They would see more clearly how much they waste, whereas spending lots of small amounts in dribs and drabs might not bring this home to them so obviously.

    I'd allow a limited number of one-off payments for single bets, so that casual punters could place bets on things like the Grand National without needing to pay the deposit.

    Also, the required deposit amount could be scaled up dynamically depending on how often previous such deposits had been made within say the previous six months. So that would cater for rich problem gamblers.
    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

  2. #2

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen is a fount of knowledge

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    29,066

    Default

    Nope won't work.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  3. #3

    More fingers than teeth

    OwlHoot - scorchio!

    OwlHoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SueEllen View Post
    Nope won't work.
    Foreign web sites? Yes, I thought of that.

    But if not that then why not?
    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

  4. #4

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen is a fount of knowledge

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    29,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OwlHoot View Post
    Foreign web sites? Yes, I thought of that.

    But if not that then why not?
    The betting companies prey on those who are addicted as they know they will lose and they can make money out of them. They also create new sites and target those addicts - it's another form of mailing list abuse.

    Plus once they can't go online they will use other forms of gambling e.g betting shops which there are loads off, TV.

    Normal people like you and I aren't profitable for betting companies.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  5. #5

    Super poster

    woohoo is a fount of knowledge

    woohoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In the country
    Posts
    4,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OwlHoot View Post
    Heard the tail end of a report about this on Radio 4 while driving into clientco.

    Surely the solution is to require regular users of online gambling sites to pay a large deposit, say £1000, and pay for their flutters out of this.

    Thay way they'd be (a) Unable to participate if they were practically skint, which many problem gamblers habitually are, and (b) They would see more clearly how much they waste, whereas spending lots of small amounts in dribs and drabs might not bring this home to them so obviously.

    I'd allow a limited number of one-off payments for single bets, so that casual punters could place bets on things like the Grand National without needing to pay the deposit.

    Also, the required deposit amount could be scaled up dynamically depending on how often previous such deposits had been made within say the previous six months. So that would cater for rich problem gamblers.
    If you require a gambler to deposit say £1000 then you are going to put that gambling website out of business. I would imagine the only gamblers to deposit 1k are the desperate ones, the casual player will simply go elsewhere.

    Also, gambling has many forms, large bets, small bets, casino games etc. If you limit single bets that what about those that play casino games, for 50p.

    Gambling sites (legit) ones have to implement responsible gambling policies to allow gamblers to disable their accounts, for 6 months etc. Notifications if they have been logged in for x hours etc. Limiting deposit amount, so a player can set a limit. Timeouts for shorter periods.

    I understand the problem with 888 is that players that self excluded say for 6 months could still bet. This was because of a technical problem.

  6. #6

    Super poster

    woohoo is a fount of knowledge

    woohoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In the country
    Posts
    4,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SueEllen View Post
    The betting companies prey on those who are addicted as they know they will lose and they can make money out of them. They also create new sites and target those addicts - it's another form of mailing list abuse.

    Plus once they can't go online they will use other forms of gambling e.g betting shops which there are loads off, TV.

    Normal people like you and I aren't profitable for betting companies.
    I don't disagree that betting companies target people but they do make a lot of money out of casual players like you are me (well not me I don't bet).

  7. #7

    My post count is Majestic

    MarillionFan is a fount of knowledge

    MarillionFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    35,765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SueEllen View Post
    The betting companies prey on those who are addicted as they know they will lose and they can make money out of them. They also create new sites and target those addicts - it's another form of mailing list abuse.

    Plus once they can't go online they will use other forms of gambling e.g betting shops which there are loads off, TV.

    Normal people like you and I aren't profitable for betting companies.
    I'm the target audience, you can bet on that.
    What happens in General, stays in General.
    You know what they say about assumptions!

  8. #8

    Super poster

    The_Equalizer is NOT a disguised employee

    The_Equalizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Back end of UK PLC
    Posts
    2,569

    Default

    This was a bit of an eye opener for me:

    UK gamblers lose record £13.8bn as industry braces for FOBT crackdown - The Guardian 25th May 2017

    From the above:

    "Each machine [FOBT] brought in an average of £52,887 a year, according to the figures, about twice the national average wage."

  9. #9

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen is a fount of knowledge

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    29,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woohoo View Post
    I don't disagree that betting companies target people but they do make a lot of money out of casual players like you are me (well not me I don't bet).
    I only bet when I go to the horses which is rarely.

    Most people I know do that much betting e.g. very rarely or once/twice a year.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  10. #10

    Old Greg is my bitch's bitch

    northernladyuk is a fount of knowledge

    northernladyuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Working the streets of your imagination
    Posts
    9,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Equalizer View Post
    This was a bit of an eye opener for me:

    UK gamblers lose record £13.8bn as industry braces for FOBT crackdown - The Guardian 25th May 2017

    From the above:

    "Each machine [FOBT] brought in an average of £52,887 a year, according to the figures, about twice the national average wage."
    It is difficult to see how allowing FOBTs is in the national interest.
    Where there's muck there's brass.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •