Worth noting that the Firms are going to be obliged to monitor & act upon Forum or chat-room comments if they are indicative of someone who might be a problem gambler. So if you are one of those poor souls who never stop moaning like a 7 year old every time you lose, then you may expect intervention by the Business, though that's my take, & it's just how I read it, & I am not a spokesman for The Business.
Worth noting that the Firms are going to be obliged to monitor & act upon Forum or chat-room comments if they are indicative of someone who might be a problem gambler. So if you are one of those poor souls who never stop moaning like a 7 year old every time you lose, then you may expect intervention by the Business, though that's my read, & it's just how I read it.
What we really need in this thread is some input from @NChanning who I know is very up on this matter & I believe has some fairly well-developed views.
Looking forward to seeing Neil on 'Luck on Sunday' on RacingTV, (hopefully this weekend), to chat about the White Paper with Nick Luck
.......and with this in mind, I was hoping he would find his way onto Question Time tonight too, being as it must be fairly local to him, if his 'LoS' contract allows
ok pretty sure I have read this wrong because i am left coming to the conclusion that tis paper is reasonable and I have nothing to worry about. Therefore I have to assume I have misunderstood something.
It appears wagering restrictions will not be a thing affordability checks will be based on deposits not someone recycling net winnings and having a loss of this.
£125 for a rolling month does seem low However if these checks are for things like CCJs and etc then really it seems sensible as only those with major debts or finance issues would be flagged for this. It is also only based on deposits so wont put profitable poker players who are sensible at any risk.
£1000 for a loss within a single day seems okay to I mean that is a big figure.
However It is not clear what the criteria for passing or failing these tests would be, and how a gambling company is to respond to someone who fails this test. It may be very awkward for gamblers who move their money around a lot.
there is more i need to look at but unfortunately I have not had the time yet.
Worth noting that the Firms are going to be obliged to monitor & act upon Forum or chat-room comments if they are indicative of someone who might be a problem gambler. So if you are one of those poor souls who never stop moaning like a 7 year old every time you lose, then you may expect intervention by the Business, though that's my take, & it's just how I read it, & I am not a spokesman for The Business.
Poker was very much my gambling saviour as it meant I could enjoy a 'gamble' without actually losing overall.
Same here. My Dad gambled more than he could afford, & so I caught the bug early. I was - & am - incurable, to this day I love that buzz a bet gives me. I was like that all my life until my mid-fifties, when I discovered poker. Soon I could gamble every day & get my fix that way without losing any money.
Oddly enough, as I am not allowed to play poker on Sky sites, I've reverted to sports betting again, but I think the poker has given me a sense of perspective, as I just bet small, mainly £10 or £20, occasionally a little more, & that gives me my daily fix.
I bet on almost any Sport I can watch on TV - football, horses, snooker, golf - I sort of "have to", I need that little surge of adrenalin, that bit of extra interest, but it's completely controlled now, & I put that down to poker.
The line “ Oddly enough, I am not allowed to play poker on Sky sites, is under the radar, but explains why the PLO8 DYM’S died a death. I’ve often wondered why you didn’t play anymore @Tikay10 . When did that rule come in? I hope it wasn’t in response to a thread where one individual was talking complete and utter nonsense.
It was after 'Stars took over as I recall, although the comments by the individual you mention certainly did not help.
I have to be seen to be squeaky clean, & when those accusations were being posted all over the place the best thing was to quit playing here. Strangely enough, I played elsewhere then & ran into him at the PLO8 MTT tables on Party soon after, he had the same alias (I had a different alias there) & he was ranting & raving "it's rigged" every time he lost a hand.
How they do not differentiate between games of skill and non skill in gambling is beyond me.
I also do not get how u can go into a petrol station and order 1000 lines of lotto or scratch cards and no one would bat an eyelid but you lose or deposit 2K in 90 days and they want to know when you last went to the toilet.
So I have had time to finally read through the whole thing and have some more developed thoughts now.
As I understand any affordability checks are done on the basis of net deposits, so hypothetically if I built a bankroll up to £5000 from an initial £100 deposit and then went on to lose £3500 nothing would happen and there would be no risk? (I have only once ever had a bankroll above £5000 and that was when I won $20000 in one night I cashed most of it out)
I think this is workable however it does mean you will be checked immediately if you plan to ever deposit more then £124.99 to a site which is a very low threshold for any serious poker player. That been said the checks at this level would be very basic and really you would only flag up if you had serious debt issues and defaults as I understand.
At £1000 more serious checks are done, I can understand the argument for this, as to most people £1000 is a lot money. for those on min wage working 35 hours a week that is over 71% of their wage. if someone makes £2500 a month net this would be 40% of their monthly wage still a big deal.
Of course the big question missed out and the white paper mentioned this been for further discussion, is what passes/fails these checks and what is the outcome of failure?
On top of this you have that every gambling site will be required to share information on vulnerable customers. That potentially means if someone self excluded permanently from say slots, BlackJack Roullette or etc they could be banned from all products for life across all sites that offer any gambling related activity. I am not saying this would be the case I am saying this is currently unclear. This could also potentially mean if someone is flagged up as having a problem by a site they could end up on this list even if they never requested that and did not want that. Further no site is likely to ever let them gamble again even if they do have only a temporary timeout, the reason been the site could potentially be done if something bad does happen and no customer could be worth that risk.
Rumours are abound a lot about two poker sites, (not sky) who allegedly ban winning players and who allegedly use responsible gambling as an excuse. I am not going to mention these sites by name here I cannot verify the claims been true or not but I have not and likely will never deposit a dime on these sites or ever attempt to build a roll through free rolls. Its not worth the risk.
As someone who tries to stick to the one deposit rule I am unlikely to face any fall out from this, but that is for the current system not for the future. They can go further.
So my general feelings for now is it is going to be fine for the short to mid term future but generic anxiety about what the future may potentially hold.
Comments
.......and with this in mind, I was hoping he would find his way onto Question Time tonight too, being as it must be fairly local to him, if his 'LoS' contract allows
It appears wagering restrictions will not be a thing affordability checks will be based on deposits not someone recycling net winnings and having a loss of this.
£125 for a rolling month does seem low However if these checks are for things like CCJs and etc then really it seems sensible as only those with major debts or finance issues would be flagged for this. It is also only based on deposits so wont put profitable poker players who are sensible at any risk.
£1000 for a loss within a single day seems okay to I mean that is a big figure.
However It is not clear what the criteria for passing or failing these tests would be, and how a gambling company is to respond to someone who fails this test. It may be very awkward for gamblers who move their money around a lot.
there is more i need to look at but unfortunately I have not had the time yet.
I’ve often wondered why you didn’t play anymore @Tikay10 . When did that rule come in?
I hope it wasn’t in response to a thread where one individual was talking complete and utter nonsense.
@pompeynic
It was after 'Stars took over as I recall, although the comments by the individual you mention certainly did not help.
I have to be seen to be squeaky clean, & when those accusations were being posted all over the place the best thing was to quit playing here. Strangely enough, I played elsewhere then & ran into him at the PLO8 MTT tables on Party soon after, he had the same alias (I had a different alias there) & he was ranting & raving "it's rigged" every time he lost a hand.
I also do not get how u can go into a petrol station and order 1000 lines of lotto or scratch cards and no one would bat an eyelid but you lose or deposit 2K in 90 days and they want to know when you last went to the toilet.
Baffling
As I understand any affordability checks are done on the basis of net deposits, so hypothetically if I built a bankroll up to £5000 from an initial £100 deposit and then went on to lose £3500 nothing would happen and there would be no risk? (I have only once ever had a bankroll above £5000 and that was when I won $20000 in one night I cashed most of it out)
I think this is workable however it does mean you will be checked immediately if you plan to ever deposit more then £124.99 to a site which is a very low threshold for any serious poker player. That been said the checks at this level would be very basic and really you would only flag up if you had serious debt issues and defaults as I understand.
At £1000 more serious checks are done, I can understand the argument for this, as to most people £1000 is a lot money. for those on min wage working 35 hours a week that is over 71% of their wage. if someone makes £2500 a month net this would be 40% of their monthly wage still a big deal.
Of course the big question missed out and the white paper mentioned this been for further discussion, is what passes/fails these checks and what is the outcome of failure?
On top of this you have that every gambling site will be required to share information on vulnerable customers. That potentially means if someone self excluded permanently from say slots, BlackJack Roullette or etc they could be banned from all products for life across all sites that offer any gambling related activity. I am not saying this would be the case I am saying this is currently unclear.
This could also potentially mean if someone is flagged up as having a problem by a site they could end up on this list even if they never requested that and did not want that.
Further no site is likely to ever let them gamble again even if they do have only a temporary timeout, the reason been the site could potentially be done if something bad does happen and no customer could be worth that risk.
Rumours are abound a lot about two poker sites, (not sky) who allegedly ban winning players and who allegedly use responsible gambling as an excuse. I am not going to mention these sites by name here I cannot verify the claims been true or not but I have not and likely will never deposit a dime on these sites or ever attempt to build a roll through free rolls. Its not worth the risk.
As someone who tries to stick to the one deposit rule I am unlikely to face any fall out from this, but that is for the current system not for the future. They can go further.
So my general feelings for now is it is going to be fine for the short to mid term future but generic anxiety about what the future may potentially hold.