Forum Forum Home Bandit’s Posts Today’s Posts

[ig igc-rm WANTED $21 Outlaw]

“nanny state” – except NONE of this is aimed at the person who is stable. Initially an inconvenience and nothing more.

And while you think you are that stable, you can break. You may be strong enough never to break but what if you get triggered and tilted and throw the lot away ? Don’t say you can’t. Say everyone can’t.

An initial inconvenience isn’t punishment, it’s protection. Surely you don’t think you are that stable it doesn’t matter about the rest of the population.

[Xbobmad WANTED $734 Outlaw]

It’s better to inconvenience hundreds than lose a loved one to gambling. It’s all too easy for someone to rock up off the street and plough their entire wage into a machine at a bookies or “amusements”. Let’s have a system, with a cooling off period, where gamblers have to sign up and have a photo ID to be able to slam a month’s wage in an hour.

If that id is monitored and subject to play limits, that’s what we have online it should be the same for everyone.

In a similar fashion, if someone can prove they are able to afford high rolling, in the UK at least, there should be a high roller system available for bonus buys etc 👍

[Ma MaskWearer WANTED $42 Blocked]

First question to ask: Why is the law the way it is? Why do physical bookmakers not have to obey the same rules regarding KYC and affordability (as well as AML and SOW) as online casinos?

Simple really. The physical bookmakers and casinos ganged up on the online casinos in the hope that erecting barriers to play would force people back to the physical locations, as is exactly the case with gamstop players or those who have exceeded limits at online casinos. The physical gambling locations paid for the restrictions on the digital gambling sphere, exactly how they did in the USA (Vegas campaigned against online gambling to keep people coming to Vegas)

So how do we fix it?

Again it’s easy and as I explained once before. Everybody will have £1000/month maximum they can spend on gambling and this limit will be enforced by the payment processors (Visa, Mastercard, Skrill, etc) and banks, who have every gambling business on their records. The physical bookies will have to retrofit their machines to accept card only (most of them can already accept cards or digital receipts), with these cards and physical receipts funded from the same source as for online casinos. So if you blow your £1000 online you have £0 for the bookie/FOBT, and vice-versa

* At the £1000 threshold there will be no KYC or any of this bullshit. If the deposit or bet is accepted the payout will follow without exception. For people who want to deposit > £1000/month, they have to go through the KYC, AML, SOW with the casino, and conduct affordability tests. If the bookie or casino allows players to lose more than they can afford to lose, the bookie or casino must pay back the player. That will put an immediate end to all problem gamblers as the casino or bookie will be paying the bill, not reaping in the profits

** Optimal solution is to create a casino/bookie chain owned by every citizen of the UK (not the government) and then use this flawlessly run and responsible casino to take over the entire world. Thus the other private gambling companies would have to match or exceed any offers and procedures at the citizen-owned casino just to compete. The end goal is to drive most of them out of business and leave only the most reputable and player-friendly enterprises standing. The days of L&L, ONSIAC, Skill On Net, Progress Play, etc, having dozens or hundreds of casinos under the same banner will be gone. One casino per provider. No more enticing new and existing players to keep gambling to unlock rewards or deposit bonuses. This is an outrage to responsible gambling and an easy way to circumvent KYC, SOW, AML. If you can deposit £100 at 100 different casinos you’ve just dropped £10K and nobody has asked you a single question – not the casino, not your debit card, not your bank. It’s a scam set up to drain vulnerable people, of which there are a staggering amount in the UK and Ireland

If we had a democratic society the people would rise up and take back what has been stolen from us by casinos. We would not accept burying our fellow citizens and destroying their lives to enrich a handful of casino owners. Fuck the casinos. People before Profit

[Ma MaskWearer WANTED $42 Blocked]

^^ Bonus buys would be limited to those who completed KYC, AML, SOW, etc

The other restrictions such as autoplay and 2.5 seconds per spin would be REMOVED for all players

[ig igc-rm WANTED $21 Outlaw]

I am pretty sure gamstop for on and offline play is the way to go. You can use their current membership cards and cash when the terminal is enabled for play with your membership card.

Yes it still leaves the danger out there which needs KYC and SOW to have something to do with enforcing gamstop if say people are one universal credit with dependencies or not, or if they have some other regard where allowing them to gamble isn’t a responsible thing to allow. I am not completely sure how this part should be dealt with, not being knowledgeable on the plethora of different circumstances out there. For example, people who get charitable assistance, would could or should may well be on gamstop.

I remember many moons ago a guy borrowing money from a friend because his money was stopped, he had been gambling and didnt pay a £25 debt back to a so called friend who then went to jail for non-payment of fine. There, it seems, £25 is freedom gone, for allegedly helping someone. People are sometimes struggling for a tenner, never mind a grand.

How many people know someone who has gone too far ? I do. I have.

[Ma MaskWearer WANTED $42 Blocked]

@igc-rm

I agree with what you’re saying – £1000 is more than many people can afford to lose a month.

The average wage in the UK is about £31,500 so if the average person loses £12K they still have enough to eat and pay the bills. I mentioned deposit limits (not loss limits) so there’s a chance people actually get a few cashouts. The maximum loss would be £12K – cashouts per year. Having a deposit limit ensures cashouts > £1K remain cashed out

For people earning £15K a year or less obviously £12K is too high. The answer to someone spending their universal credit on a FOBT isn’t about limits to gambling it’s about helping that person and sorting out whatever has gone wrong or is going wrong. If people on UC couldn’t gamble then they would do something else instead, drugs or alcohol most likely. Even if we banned gambling entirely in the UK, those people on UC who would gamble until they are broke would find another way to fuck things up. I’m sorry to be harsh but that’s the reality, the people are not blameless for being slaves to gambling. If it wasn’t gambling it would be something else and they would be in the same situation

Yes gamstop should apply to online and offline play – enforced by only accepting debit cards offline/online (no more cash or cryptos). Those cards would be limited by the banks and payment processors to £1000/month and linked to gamstop/gamban

[ig igc-rm WANTED $21 Outlaw]

I agree except for the assumption where you talk about drink and drugs. I for example dont drink or do any form of drugs or even smoke. During lockdown, while on gamstop, there was nowhere to gamble. I was to be blunt, richer. My enthusiasm was entirely curbed with no urge to flick pebbles and coins or turn cards in a darkly lit room, whatever it may be. I have no interest in footy or horse dog bets etc.

It may be wise not to allow ourselves to go down a road of assumption in these things. I am quite pleased a few of us, even if we wouldn’t normally get along or could easily fall into argument, are supporting this whole notion and agreeably looking at it diversely which then makes me look at my reply to you and consider the people who indeed would do exactly what you say.

I like to think joe bloggs being told or seeing he is not financially fit nor allowed to walk in the bookies and throw the little bit of life he has left, away, is enough but that would be naive. Maybe that is something else to consider, while pushing for a real helping hand for those with little or no self control that the industry is happily hoovering up and leaving destroyed.

[Author]

Posts