So was in a timed tournament 11pm and a player called @morrow123 was sat out and blinded out quite a lot of chips they would have been up on money if they had kept the stack from where I saw it when they were sat out.
I have no relation interaction or anything to say about morrow123. Just I noticed they are a fairly new player to sky having only played 46 games. the likelihood is they had a disconnect as is relatively common from sky and that they will not seize to be a customer now we likely keep losing new players this way and that is likely a significant reason why the numbers are going down.
Considering how stringent the new regs are now it is astonishing that Sky even gets the numbers that it does. That's the reality. A new equilibrium will form and some regs will have to stop or move and everything will have to simply scale down.
Considering how stringent the new regs are now it is astonishing that Sky even gets the numbers that it does. That's the reality. A new equilibrium will form and some regs will have to stop or move and everything will have to simply scale down.
What exactly are these regulations? like does it limit wagering or play time or is it only deposits?
I think either way the traffic on sky will die eventually but if the former I am done for on all non black market sites if the latter I will be fine I will just have to play on a different site.
So was in a timed tournament 11pm and a player called @morrow123 was sat out and blinded out quite a lot of chips they would have been up on money if they had kept the stack from where I saw it when they were sat out.
I have no relation interaction or anything to say about morrow123. Just I noticed they are a fairly new player to sky having only played 46 games. the likelihood is they had a disconnect as is relatively common from sky and that they will not seize to be a customer now we likely keep losing new players this way and that is likely a significant reason why the numbers are going down.
Massive assumption you are making here. Are lots of potential reasons, I don't think you can assume it is connection issues and even if it is that it is at sky's end.
Considering how stringent the new regs are now it is astonishing that Sky even gets the numbers that it does. That's the reality. A new equilibrium will form and some regs will have to stop or move and everything will have to simply scale down.
What exactly are these regulations? like does it limit wagering or play time or is it only deposits?
I think either way the traffic on sky will die eventually but if the former I am done for on all non black market sites if the latter I will be fine I will just have to play on a different site.
It's both, they regulated around what you earn, what you can afford to lose and not losing too much too quickly. Some sites are far more regulated than others but it's certainly just British that have these regulations so sky is the only site likely to suffer sadly.
The regulations are a complete farce in reality, because any given site decides how much you can lose each month up to a defined limit, yet you can go and lose a similar amount on any of the many many sites. The regulations are effectively nothing but a headache for everyone involved. They are in place to stop problem gambling whereby someone just deposits relentlessly and loses a lot of money. Unfortunately a problem gambler will find their way to super easy to access offshore or crypto books, of which there are many.
What they do achieve is endless red tape, so much so that some sites just decide to leave the uk entirely, because it's not cost effective.
EDIT: Anti gambling lobbying will continue, and it will eventually become clear how absurd these current controls are and then something else will happen. Who knows what?
So I must really suck at googling I already know I suck at googling but did not know I really suck. I regularly google UK gambling laws and have seen nothing concrete about regulation changes.
I am consistently profitable that is not a boast , just a reason why I might not have had any issues yet. It has been a long time since I have had a night where I lost over £100 due to bad luck/downswing. This is highly unlikely to happen in the next month as I just wont be playing enough volume to make this likely (though it is not impossible)
is it just guidelines and the site responsible or are their concrete rules? Eg do the rules say that once someone loses £100 affordability checks and or restrictions are necessary or is it vague? I doubt figure would be as low as £100 but is their specific figures over specific time periods?
what are the rules on wagering restrictions do you know anything specific? like is it an amount on specific stakes or total amount wagered? If I was to play 400 spin and goes a day at $5 games then technically I have wagered $2000 however playing 5-7 tables at once I never wagered more then $25-$35 at a time. I practice bankroll management so whatever I lose in a given period of time is always going to be relative to how much money I have in a poker account at the time.
Is any of this based on savings or how much is in a poker account? Eg say I got very good and made it to $100 spin and goes my bankroll at that point would need to be at least $20000 whether I had an edge at these or not (certainly would not right now) I would definitely have days where I lost a several hundred if not a few thousand $.
would they consider relative bankroll or not? can you define your job as professional poker player? I dont think I play enough or make enough to do that right now, but it is relevant should that change.
I'm not sure exactly how it's termed but it's something along the lines of - if player deposits or plays more than usual then you need to ask them if they are comfortable. Next step is affordability check. The procedures to carry this out are not black and white and the sites choose how to deal with this in their own way.
I'm not sure exactly how it's termed but it's something along the lines of - if player deposits or plays more than usual then you need to ask them if they are comfortable. Next step is affordability check. The procedures to carry this out are not black and white and the sites choose how to deal with this in their own way.
yeah from my research which may be bad it is all vague and their is not a specific amount of money lost or deposited or time spent but a site is held responsible if someone does something stupid and on review the customer appeared to be losing amounts or depositing amounts which should indicate a problem.
I guess if it is down to site discretion I never should have a problem as it would be clear to anyone that there is no risk with me.
If there are concrete rules in place either from government or company policy etc that say when figure X is lost/wagered then I might or might not have issues.
After my exams in the summer I am intending to play a lot more online. perhaps people would have common sense in that wait he had exams in that period so did not play much but he did not have exams in the summer so played a lot more this is obvious and healthy rather then must have developed problem!
there was talk of a single customer view and still is, where by all the sites share info on what was wagered and lost and how much time spent etc, How feasible this would be/is I do not know.
A single customer wallet would solve all issues but I doubt they would do something simple and common sense their is no need for experts if the solution is simple after all.
for those that dont know a single customer wallet is the idea of a service like paypal or skrill existing that process all deposits and withdrawals to gambling sites and customers to gambling sites can only go through this method. The idea been one single company processors all transactions so has a view on everything on a single customer.
I'm not sure exactly how it's termed but it's something along the lines of - if player deposits or plays more than usual then you need to ask them if they are comfortable. Next step is affordability check. The procedures to carry this out are not black and white and the sites choose how to deal with this in their own way.
yeah from my research which may be bad it is all vague and their is not a specific amount of money lost or deposited or time spent but a site is held responsible if someone does something stupid and on review the customer appeared to be losing amounts or depositing amounts which should indicate a problem.
I guess if it is down to site discretion I never should have a problem as it would be clear to anyone that there is no risk with me.
If there are concrete rules in place either from government or company policy etc that say when figure X is lost/wagered then I might or might not have issues.
After my exams in the summer I am intending to play a lot more online. perhaps people would have common sense in that wait he had exams in that period so did not play much but he did not have exams in the summer so played a lot more this is obvious and healthy rather then must have developed problem!
there was talk of a single customer view and still is, where by all the sites share info on what was wagered and lost and how much time spent etc, How feasible this would be/is I do not know.
A single customer wallet would solve all issues but I doubt they would do something simple and common sense their is no need for experts if the solution is simple after all.
for those that dont know a single customer wallet is the idea of a service like paypal or skrill existing that process all deposits and withdrawals to gambling sites and customers to gambling sites can only go through this method. The idea been one single company processors all transactions so has a view on everything on a single customer.
There are certainly advantages in using paypal or skrill. But there are 2 major disadvantages, of which the 2nd is massive.
1. Charges. Paypal and skrill make charges for various services, often at the withdrawal stage
2. Lack of protection. The likes of Skrill are very quick to point out that they are regulated by the FCA. Which is a good thing. But what they do not tell you is that, if Skrill or whoever go busto there is no protection via the FSCS. So-if your money is held at a bank, the 1st £85,000 is protected in full. For Skrill and the likes, it is £0.
You should never hold funds in Skrill or Paypal for any length of time. They might look like Banks. But they are not Banks. Or Building Societies, or similar. And your money is at risk.
The best way forward, would be either a designated poker bank account, or an assurance that no more than a set figure is being gambled in any 1 month.
I'm not sure exactly how it's termed but it's something along the lines of - if player deposits or plays more than usual then you need to ask them if they are comfortable. Next step is affordability check. The procedures to carry this out are not black and white and the sites choose how to deal with this in their own way.
yeah from my research which may be bad it is all vague and their is not a specific amount of money lost or deposited or time spent but a site is held responsible if someone does something stupid and on review the customer appeared to be losing amounts or depositing amounts which should indicate a problem.
I guess if it is down to site discretion I never should have a problem as it would be clear to anyone that there is no risk with me.
If there are concrete rules in place either from government or company policy etc that say when figure X is lost/wagered then I might or might not have issues.
After my exams in the summer I am intending to play a lot more online. perhaps people would have common sense in that wait he had exams in that period so did not play much but he did not have exams in the summer so played a lot more this is obvious and healthy rather then must have developed problem!
there was talk of a single customer view and still is, where by all the sites share info on what was wagered and lost and how much time spent etc, How feasible this would be/is I do not know.
A single customer wallet would solve all issues but I doubt they would do something simple and common sense their is no need for experts if the solution is simple after all.
for those that dont know a single customer wallet is the idea of a service like paypal or skrill existing that process all deposits and withdrawals to gambling sites and customers to gambling sites can only go through this method. The idea been one single company processors all transactions so has a view on everything on a single customer.
There are certainly advantages in using paypal or skrill. But there are 2 major disadvantages, of which the 2nd is massive.
1. Charges. Paypal and skrill make charges for various services, often at the withdrawal stage
2. Lack of protection. The likes of Skrill are very quick to point out that they are regulated by the FCA. Which is a good thing. But what they do not tell you is that, if Skrill or whoever go busto there is no protection via the FSCS. So-if your money is held at a bank, the 1st £85,000 is protected in full. For Skrill and the likes, it is £0.
You should never hold funds in Skrill or Paypal for any length of time. They might look like Banks. But they are not Banks. Or Building Societies, or similar. And your money is at risk.
The best way forward, would be either a designated poker bank account, or an assurance that no more than a set figure is being gambled in any 1 month.
Okay I think I have explained this quite badly, I will try again.
The single customer wallet was an idea proposed by a few different sources the idea is that one single company processes all gambling transactions. Lets hypothetically call them gamwallet. So in effect no deposits or withdrawals to any gambling site would be allowed other then through gamwallet. I could deposit from my bank into gamwallet and withdraw from gamwallet.
So no gambling site would need to monitor an individuals gambling or be able to fail or follow gambling safety rules it would all be done by gamwallet who would take full responsibility. the advantages been rather then trying to track someones play and or deposits through multiple sites (single customer view) which may be difficult to implement gamwallet could handle everything.
They would be independent so would not have a bias or an alternative agenda. They could then make decisions on affordability triggers and etc.
such a wallet could charge or not charge for their services depending on the contract with government or industry etc whether the money in the wallet is safe or not in the event of them going bust could also be worked out.
its not clear what charges or rules such a wallet would have as such a thing does not currently exist. it is something that has been proposed in a few different places. ultimately whilst I think the idea still has its potential short comings and flaws I believe it is a better model then what currently exists or the headache of a single customer view.
Comments
I have no relation interaction or anything to say about morrow123. Just I noticed they are a fairly new player to sky having only played 46 games. the likelihood is they had a disconnect as is relatively common from sky and that they will not seize to be a customer now we likely keep losing new players this way and that is likely a significant reason why the numbers are going down.
I think either way the traffic on sky will die eventually but if the former I am done for on all non black market sites if the latter I will be fine I will just have to play on a different site.
What they do achieve is endless red tape, so much so that some sites just decide to leave the uk entirely, because it's not cost effective.
EDIT: Anti gambling lobbying will continue, and it will eventually become clear how absurd these current controls are and then something else will happen. Who knows what?
I am consistently profitable that is not a boast , just a reason why I might not have had any issues yet. It has been a long time since I have had a night where I lost over £100 due to bad luck/downswing. This is highly unlikely to happen in the next month as I just wont be playing enough volume to make this likely (though it is not impossible)
is it just guidelines and the site responsible or are their concrete rules? Eg do the rules say that once someone loses £100 affordability checks and or restrictions are necessary or is it vague? I doubt figure would be as low as £100 but is their specific figures over specific time periods?
what are the rules on wagering restrictions do you know anything specific? like is it an amount on specific stakes or total amount wagered?
If I was to play 400 spin and goes a day at $5 games then technically I have wagered $2000 however playing 5-7 tables at once I never wagered more then $25-$35 at a time. I practice bankroll management so whatever I lose in a given period of time is always going to be relative to how much money I have in a poker account at the time.
Is any of this based on savings or how much is in a poker account? Eg say I got very good and made it to $100 spin and goes my bankroll at that point would need to be at least $20000 whether I had an edge at these or not (certainly would not right now) I would definitely have days where I lost a several hundred if not a few thousand $.
would they consider relative bankroll or not? can you define your job as professional poker player? I dont think I play enough or make enough to do that right now, but it is relevant should that change.
I guess if it is down to site discretion I never should have a problem as it would be clear to anyone that there is no risk with me.
If there are concrete rules in place either from government or company policy etc that say when figure X is lost/wagered then I might or might not have issues.
After my exams in the summer I am intending to play a lot more online. perhaps people would have common sense in that wait he had exams in that period so did not play much but he did not have exams in the summer so played a lot more this is obvious and healthy rather then must have developed problem!
there was talk of a single customer view and still is, where by all the sites share info on what was wagered and lost and how much time spent etc, How feasible this would be/is I do not know.
A single customer wallet would solve all issues but I doubt they would do something simple and common sense their is no need for experts if the solution is simple after all.
for those that dont know a single customer wallet is the idea of a service like paypal or skrill existing that process all deposits and withdrawals to gambling sites and customers to gambling sites can only go through this method. The idea been one single company processors all transactions so has a view on everything on a single customer.
1. Charges. Paypal and skrill make charges for various services, often at the withdrawal stage
2. Lack of protection. The likes of Skrill are very quick to point out that they are regulated by the FCA. Which is a good thing. But what they do not tell you is that, if Skrill or whoever go busto there is no protection via the FSCS. So-if your money is held at a bank, the 1st £85,000 is protected in full. For Skrill and the likes, it is £0.
You should never hold funds in Skrill or Paypal for any length of time. They might look like Banks. But they are not Banks. Or Building Societies, or similar. And your money is at risk.
The best way forward, would be either a designated poker bank account, or an assurance that no more than a set figure is being gambled in any 1 month.
The single customer wallet was an idea proposed by a few different sources the idea is that one single company processes all gambling transactions. Lets hypothetically call them gamwallet. So in effect no deposits or withdrawals to any gambling site would be allowed other then through gamwallet.
I could deposit from my bank into gamwallet and withdraw from gamwallet.
So no gambling site would need to monitor an individuals gambling or be able to fail or follow gambling safety rules it would all be done by gamwallet who would take full responsibility. the advantages been rather then trying to track someones play and or deposits through multiple sites (single customer view) which may be difficult to implement gamwallet could handle everything.
They would be independent so would not have a bias or an alternative agenda. They could then make decisions on affordability triggers and etc.
such a wallet could charge or not charge for their services depending on the contract with government or industry etc whether the money in the wallet is safe or not in the event of them going bust could also be worked out.
its not clear what charges or rules such a wallet would have as such a thing does not currently exist. it is something that has been proposed in a few different places. ultimately whilst I think the idea still has its potential short comings and flaws I believe it is a better model then what currently exists or the headache of a single customer view.