Online bookies must keep punters' cash in separate account Licensing conditions proposed by the Gambling Commission may not adequately protect customers against the risk of losing their money or credits if gambling operators become insolvent, an expert has warned. The Commission is consulting on draft plans that, if introduced, would oblige remote gambling licensees, except ancillary …
Licensing conditions proposed by the Gambling Commission may not adequately protect customers against the risk of losing their money or credits if gambling operators become insolvent
Gambling is a way to lose Money, the odds are stacked against you. If they go insolvent at least you won't get hooked on playing more where as if they stay solvent a lot of people just keep piling money in.
If they go insolvent at least you won't get hooked on playing more
You should go to a Gambler's Anonymous meeting sometime - people with a gambling problem would bet on two flies going up a wall. The closure of one website wouldn't bother a person with a gambling problem.
> Gambling is a way to lose Money
Gambling is usually a leisure activity that costs you money. If you go to the theatre, cinema, play golf, have nights out etc, these all cost you money. Gambling is no different.
I am actually a professional gambler (I gamble on events) but when I go to a casino I know I am going to lose and decide beforehand how much. If I come out losing less than I have designated then I have had a cheap night and coming out with a profit is simply a bonus.
Problems arise when people believe they have a system or think they can simply read a form guide to determine who will win. They are deluding themselves. Successful gambling depends upon research and a solid understanding of mathematics, probability and statistics. Most importantly, professional gambling needs self control.
"I know I am going to lose and decide beforehand how much. If I come out losing less than I have designated then I have had a cheap night and coming out with a profit is simply a bonus."
But the people who have this knowledge and attitude are inherently unlikely to gamble. You are going to be a rare exception.
> But the people who have this knowledge and attitude are inherently unlikely to gamble.
You obviously don't know many people who gamble. Nearly everybody I know who gambles does it for fun, not to either make ends meet or for a living. They all have the hope that they will win but realise that the odds are against them. In my local pub, every Saturday afternoon, there is a group of 6 or 7 middle aged men who gather and gamble on the horses all afternoon. Their stakes are low and they have no expectation of winning in the long term but they get enjoyment from the times that they do beat the odds.
The media representation of gamblers is highly stereotyped - it tends to be somebody who gambles the house away, somebody who gambles in a desperate attempt to raise cash or somebody who mistakenly believes they have a "sure thing". Whilst these people exist (just like alcoholics) the vast majority of those who gamble know the odds are against them.
Gambling is usually a leisure activity that costs you money. If you go to the theatre, cinema, play golf, have nights out etc, these all cost you money. Gambling is no different.
Yes, I am aware, I play poker occasionally against friends, I was not saying gambling is all bad. But comparing it to things like golf and the cinema is a bit to far. The only thing the same is that you are paying money to do something.
Gambling is addictive which leads people to putting more money in. These other things you mention you pay you use what is being offered, you leave. You are not trying to win that money back.
The last British gambling survey was undertaken in 2010 and in that survey 0.7% of those who gamble were identified as having a gambling problem with negative consequences.
> I play poker occasionally against friends,
and if you have ever gone back another day to win back the money you lost to your friends then you are amongst the 5.6% of the population who are defined, by the same survey, as having a low level of problems with few or no identified negative consequences.
> But comparing it to things like golf and the cinema is a bit to far. The only thing the same is that you are paying money to do something.
Like golf and the cinema, it is a leisure activity and it costs you money to participate.
> Gambling is addictive which leads people to putting more money in.
Literally anything can be addictive. They even have a catch-all for it and call it Behavioural Addiction. With this you can be addicted to anything from shopping to exercise to gambling.
Obviously some activities will be more addictive but gambling isn't the big issue that people think it is.
I bet they love your sermons at the local methodist church. A right bundle of joy you are, aren't you?
Gambling is, quite simply, the exercise of the risk:reward ratio. It's everywhere but in some quarters they dress it up in pinstripe suits and called it 'establishment' and respectable. If you've got a pension somwhere you can't be all high, mighty and holier than thou just because you've given your pension to someone else to accumulate in the markets.
I don't suppose that you have your house insured, have you? After all that's you betting the insurance company that your house will burn down or flood this year.
If you understand anything about society it's all about risk. Some of it is dressed up nicer than others but it's all the same. You can't pick and choose; if you don't insure your house, your car (though you are gambling that you won't get caught), don't have a pension then, and only then, can you come on here going on about the odds stacked against you.
It's down the mathematics and modelling at the end of the day. If you have a percentage edge then is that gambling or investing?
But don't answer that, you've already shown your black-eyed views on the subject so why should you comment?
I don't know where to start with this. I assume you are replying to me.
First you where am I preaching? Let alone going to a church, why do people have to bring the magical sky fairy into everything? You do realise different people have different opinions don't you. And that what is going on here is discussion, I would not go so far as to say debate.
I don't suppose that you have your house insured, have you? After all that's you betting the insurance company that your house will burn down or flood this year.
I have to pay for my house insurance as dictated by the law of the land.
Insurance is not a gamble. It is insurance. Your not paying in an attempt to win something back. Or do you go around crashing your car, burning your house down so that you can "win"? And don't go on saying you win by not having to replace your house. I have paid money into a big hole. Do I get it back? Surely if it is a gamble I should get back what I have paid in at the end of the round/game/whatever (year say if that is the contract term) because I won?
But you are right in that insurance is a statistics assertion. There are fundamental differences between insurance and gambling but you seem unable to see them.
All of life can be summed up in statistics and mathematics. Does that make the "gambling" we are talking about any different?
But don't answer that, you've already shown your black-eyed views on the subject so why should you comment?
I've shown my views, yes, even that I gamble? You seem to fail at reading as well as comprehension, I guess you just skipped over anything that did not fit with your single tracked take on the matter.
I can't understand what makes gambling different to any other business. I can understand why solicitors and banks can ring fence customers money, as (in theory at least) they are not taking money merely holding it in trust. The money dose not become theres. Gambling, however, dose not seem any different to any other business.
If, for example, I go in to a car dealership and order a car, they go bust with my money, I don't get it back (well, not automatically). I don't get the service I pay for. Same with a bookies. I pay them cash with the possibility of them giving me more back, or not if I bet poorly. I can see that they are, kind of, holding it in trust, but no more than the car dealership that has my cash for a new car.
With internet gambling you create an account and deposit money in that account. Any winnings are paid into your account and will remain there until you withdraw them. This is completely different than a car dealership.
In a car dealership you only ever give them money. You don't deposit £30k with the dealership and then decide to buy a car, have a service on the wife's car, fill up with petrol and then withdraw £2k for other expenses. When you give a dealership money it is for a specific purpose - buying a car - and you have committed that money to the dealership so they can do what they want with it.
When you deposit money into a gambling site it isn't for a specific purpose and you have not committed that money to the site. With some sites you can even use it to buy merchandise rather than gamble. On all sites you can decide not to gamble and withdraw all or part of the money deposited. This is why the customer's money should be ring-fenced.
Do what a lot of us do. Keep a small float in the site's account and then draw most of it out once a week or whenver so that if the site, be it a bookmaker or exchange, goes bust then mos of the betting fund isn't lost.
I have a seperate account for my betting fund and that goes in and out of the exchanges as required.
Most of the time it's common sense when it comes to money management.
"Operators may be asked to demonstrate their assessment to the Commission at any point. Failure to demonstrate that the level displayed to the customer is accurate within the rating system would constitute a licence breach, and may bring enforcement action."
Since this is all based on confidence in the site, wouldn't an enforcement action result in punters trying to cash out? The result of everybody trying to withdraw their money is left as an exercise to the reader.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
