So when I wrote the last tweet on Affordability Checks (150) I had no definitive proof that I believed restrictions were driving more people to the Black Market than Affordability Checks were at that moment in time. I still don’t. It is just my opinion.
The problem with these situations and there were various tweets yesterday is that the information is simply not forthcoming from the bookmakers. Skybet gave some details on restrictions in 2018 implying 3% of their customer base faced some restrictions. It just really isn’t clear though as I am told the comments were very misleading, in the way that they were reported and that was from the man who made those comments (Richard Flint). It’s one of the really good things about Twitter.
Five years is a long time in this game and things have clearly changed since. I said that anecdotally it seems to me and those I speak to that the accounts are being restricted/closed more quickly than ever. These are people who multi account professionally. Who’s job it is to try and keep accounts open for as long as possible. People who understand the triggers for stake factoring. This isnt ten accounts. This is the case with literally hundreds if not thousands of accounts. It is only anecdotal evidence though. I have nothing to back it up factually. Better than nothing though. The joys of Twitter are such though that you are told that anecdotal evidence is worthless. Blah blah blah. I am very much of the belief that account restrictions have increased in those five years. That’s my opinion. No idea re AC numbers.
One thing worth pointing out at this stage is the murkiness between AC and KYC. The bookies have taken it upon themselves to behave deplorably with regard to KYC checks and delaying withdrawals. They are asking for more info to stall that process. They are not all necessarily ACs.
The poll I ran about it saw over 900 people respond and over 2/3rds said that they believed restrictions are a bigger driver of punters to the Black Market than AC were. I am well aware that those following me are more likely to be restricted than an average punter. Still interesting to see. On the flipside if they are betting higher amounts then they are also more likely to be subject to ACs. We just don’t know what the situation is. What we do know is that we are aggressively being told one thing by Dugher and his cronies and I think its questionable at best.
I think what it really highlights (again) is the dynamic of vested parties within the industry. The bookmakers are desperate for Affordability Checks not to happen as it clearly has a huge impact on their profits. We have seen that already. Let alone something more stringent. Please do not fall for the narrative that they care about protecting the punter. This is simply self preservation at its finest. They are doing the minimum that they think they can get away with. It gives the impression they are taking corrective measures. They can say to the regulator we know we have an issue and are trying to address it. Rather than something from the regulator, with potential to decimate their businesses, being foisted upon them. Like ACs.
There are not many more odious characters in this industry than Dugher. For him to say that they should be proud and that this is a good industry doing good things. Intimating that the changes made to Responsible Gambling have been driven by the operators and the kindness in their hearts. Treat it and him with the contempt it deserves.
We have the RP desperate to protect the said bookmakers, coming out in full force. Who knew they could have such a powerful voice when it suited their agenda. It just highlights once again that any claims to impartiality are a complete nonsense. Embarrassing tbh. Racing desperate to protect itself as it realises its funding model is completely screwed without betting. Panic stations. The MP (Scully) responsible for the White Paper giving a keynote speech yesterday to the BGC. Clearly no conflicts of interest there then.
The Gambling Commission trying to come across as a strong regulator. Offering wishy washy guidelines. They do such a bad job on so many levels. The only thing they have done well is to make sure Responsible Gambling is being discussed. What seems lost on them is that if they are serious about it then maybe ask why bookmakers are forcing so many to the black market with the various restrictions. Onerous KYC checks. Why so many cant trust bookmakers supposedly vetted by them.
As usual the one party in all of this who is constantly an afterthought and is literally just a by product is the punter. They are simply caught up in the cross fire of bookmakers trying to maximise profits and the regulators trying to reel them in. Screwed time and time again. I have said many times now that the bookmakers have all the information/data they need to hugely reduce PG. It goes against their business model though. Paul Scully did at least allude to yday that there will be more onus on the operators to use this data more appropriately.
The good news is that it looks like Affordability Checks wont happen but that doesn’t resolve a lot of the issues. Nothing really changes. The bookmakers will continue to alienate anyone who might conceivably win. Forcing them to the black market in their droves. Bookmakers will still be issued with fines for questionable behaviours. The regulators will still do a terrible job enforcing the rules they actually have in place. They will no doubt provide no new clarity. The press will still be in the pockets of the bookmakers. The MPs will still jump on whichever bandwagon incentivises them most appropriately. Have no shame. The large social media accounts wont say boo to a goose or actually voice an opinion. And as usual no one will fight for the punter and what is best for them.
ProPunting 