‘An open goal for illegal bookmakers’ – integrity expert warns on affordability checks.
A senior executive of the Hong Kong Jockey Club who is well-versed in illegal betting has informed a global audience of racing leaders that affordability checks are providing black market bookmakers with a priceless open goal.
An Asian Racing Conference session in Melbourne featured a presentation by the HKJC’s executive manager of racing integrity and betting analysis, Tom Chignell, who discussed the unstoppable expansion of unregulated operators and their growing desire to attract racing punters.
Chignell made a direct connection between the intrusive bookmaker-imposed checks that are driving punters away from the regulated market and eating into the finances of British racing after his HKJC colleague Doug Robinson warned that illegal betting, which is frequently linked to wider crime and money laundering, represented “the number one threat to the integrity of racing.”
A member of the Asian Racing Federation Council on Anti-Illegal Betting and Related Financial Crime, Chignell stated: It seems to be a huge problem right now in the UK, in my opinion. Not only are affordability checks driving recreational gamblers away from regulated businesses, but they are also almost directly driving them to the illegal betting market.
“Can you get a bet on? Can you get fair odds? Can you bet on the sport and product you want to bet on? If you can’t, these are three major incentives to push the customers racing wants to attract – the Saturday gamblers to the illegal betting market.”
Hundreds of punters have complained to the Racing Post about being asked to hand over a slew of personal financial information to bookmakers, who have repeatedly lowered the bar at which checks are initiated out of fear of being fined by the Gambling Commission, despite repeated delays to the publication of the UK government’s white paper on gambling reform.
Racecourse Media Group revealed on Sunday that a survey of 3,500 Racing TV members found that 15% of respondents either bet or know someone who bets with an unlicensed firm. The regulator has attempted to downplay the extent to which frustrated punters are turning to the black market.
Chignell added: “The concern is that while Britain has had a diverse regulated market, and although people have sometimes struggled to get bets on with bookmakers because they have been successful and therefore had to spread money across the regulated market, you now have reports of people in betting shops being asked for financial information like three months of bank statements. People don’t want to do that, which means this is a real opportunity for the illegal market to target those individuals.
“When the last Asian Racing Conference took place in South Africa three years ago, there were a few smaller operators who had started offering fixed odds on horseracing. That number is growing and we are now seeing more significant Asian-facing companies doing it. Those companies are being given an open goal to make inroads into what was a regulated market.”
———————————————————–
If you want more free horse racing tips from professional horse racing tipsters, then look no further than our free mailing list. Get your free horse racing tips here.
Clueless Gambling Commission treating us with contempt.
Last weekend, the Gambling Commission CEO made a case in these pages that was welcomed with suspicion and shock by those acquainted with the association’s work: he guaranteed it was “nonsense” to say the meddlesome reasonableness checks scourging punters and causing serious harm to dashing’s incomes were crafted by the wagering controller.
Andrew Rhodes’ reasoning for making that guarantee was that the controller has not expressly commanded that bookmakers ought to request pay slips, bank proclamations and assessment forms from their clients.
However, he surrendered, the Gambling Commission had made it clear to bookmakers they should have “proportionate thresholds” for wagering movement above which firms are supposed to consider clients’ monetary conditions and their capacity to ‘manage’ their wagering. Inability to do so could bring about immense fines for bookmakers, or even the deficiency of their permit.
How firms fulfil this administrative prerequisite, Rhodes expressed, ultimately depended on them. Yet, by what other means are bookmakers expected to think about their clients’ individual monetary conditions, besides by asking bettors for pay slips, bank proclamations and government forms?
The circumstance is compounded in light of the fact that the Gambling Commission won’t characterise what those “proportionate thresholds” should seem to be, liking rather some vague waffle about “average available income” and the differentiation among “disposable” and “discretionary” pay. Bookmakers, got between the stone and a hard spot of swingeing disciplines and unimaginably unclear rules, have justifiably applied the preparatory standard, meaning huge number of common, mindful punters have previously been up to speed in moderateness checks.
It is much the same as the German police pronouncing that anybody viewed as driving “too fast” on the expressway will be hit by huge fines and potentially lose their permit, declining to explain what “excessively quick” signifies, and afterward, when the organisation eases back to a creep in light of the fact that the streets are loaded with anxious Teutonic drivers whistling along at 20mph, saying, ‘Well, we haven’t imposed any speed limits, so it’s nothing to do with us’.
In the event that the Gambling Commission truly doesn’t think reasonableness checks are the result of its own guideline, then it is careless in regards to the undeniable outcomes of its rules. If – as appears to be more probable – it is guaranteeing blamelessness on reasonableness checks since it perceives how disputable they are and wishes to keep away from examination, then it is disparaging bettors and deceiving the two purchasers and the political bosses to whom it evidently replies.
As per a Dashing television study delivered last week, in excess of a fifth of hustling bettors have proactively been approached to supply individual records like payslips and bank proclamations, and the trepidation presently is the following month’s Cheltenham Celebration will demonstrate a seismic second in this adventure for every one of some unacceptable reasons. Numerous punters whose wagering action the remainder of the year is under the bookmakers’ current “proportionate thresholds” are responsible to be hit with requests for monetary archives, just on the grounds that for multi week of the year they essentially increment their wagering spending plan.
While at most bookmakers these limits stay dark, we know that at 888, proprietor of William Slope, the reasonableness check bar has been set at £500. This is an aggregate numerous sporting punters would see as a moderate bank for the celebration, yet, at certain bookies, it will be sufficient to create freezes on action until delicate monetary reports are given.
The frenzy of that figure is featured by the reality simply going to the celebration would be considered possibly ‘unaffordable’ on a similar premise. At the hour of composing, a three-star lodging around on the premiere night of Cheltenham will hamper you more than £400. A Tattersalls ticket for the Tuesday is £72. Toss in food, beverages and transport, and you’re taking a gander at near £600 for the afternoon. Is the Chief Hotel going to begin requesting bank explanations at registration?
Ludicrous and hostile individuals endeavouring to store two or three hundred quid with a bookmaker one month from now will be treated like they are unequipped for making the most minor of monetary exchanges without the nannying oversight of a bookmaker’s consistence administrator, however be under no deceptions: this is what is going on definitely made by the Gambling Commission’s overweening and misguided guideline.
The commission’s refusal to try and just let it out is the engineer of moderateness checks demonstrates the reality of the circumstance confronting hustling and bettors. The main genuine type of plan of action, and the main expectation that the wild controller can be halted before disastrous harm is finished to dashing, is for the public authority to step in. However the possibility of that event, which appeared to be generally certain only half a month prior while the betting pastor Paul Scully proclaimed it was not the controller’s responsibility to figure out what individuals can stand to spend on betting, has now subsided.
Scully has been reshuffled, having been in the gig for under four months. His replacement – who over seven days after the fact has still not been selected – will be the 6th priest since the gambling survey, which we trust will give lucidity about what is and isn’t normal from bookmakers, was declared in 2020.
Obviously, betting change isn’t close to the highest point of state head Rishi Sunak’s need list. Yet, on the off chance that the political class doesn’t mind a lot of whether your freedoms are diminished by a controller, or that the blow-back is a centuries-old game cherished by millions and an effective rustic industry, what lawmakers without a doubt really do think often about is votes.
Fortunately, Racecourse Media Gathering, the racecourse-claimed parent organisation of Dashing television, has recently sent off a letter-composing effort that empowers bettors to rapidly and effectively alert their nearby MP to their interests about reasonableness checks and the Gambling Commission’s way of behaving. You can sign the letter by following this connection. Assuming that you care about your privileges, or the eventual fate of hustling, I ask you to do as such before it is past the point of no return.
———————————————————–
If you want more free horse racing tips from professional horse racing tipsters, then look no further than our free mailing list. Get your free horse racing tips here.
The Gambling Commission denies mandating the gambling industry’s burdensome affordability checks.
The claims that the industry regulator is pressuring bookmakers to impose intrusive affordability checks on bettors, according to Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes, are “nonsense.”
Rhodes stated that the commission did not require operators to make such requests, despite extensive evidence of ordinary punters being asked to provide personal financial information in order to continue betting. Additionally, Rhodes stated that the sport could not attribute the decline in horseracing betting to affordability checks.
The government’s long-delayed gambling review white paper is expected to include affordability checks in some form. However, punters have lodged hundreds of complaints with the Racing Post, alleging that they have been required to provide financial documents such as bank statements and tax returns in order to demonstrate that they are able to pay for the amount of money they spend on gambling. This despite Paul Scully’s recent statement that neither the government nor the Gambling Commission should tell people how much they can afford to bet.
Bookmakers claim that Gambling Commission guidelines on customer interaction have forced them to use the contentious checks, but Rhodes stated: “The idea the commission is imposing pressure on the industry to carry out checks for the average punter is nonsense. Operators are currently required to have systems in place which identify people who may be at risk of harm and to take appropriate action. One part of an operator’s approach to managing risk is having proportionate thresholds at which more information is required to satisfy themselves there is no issue with that customer relationship.”
He added: “We do not require operators to get payslips or bank statements, it will be up to the operator how they go about any check they feel they need to make.”
Despite this, Rhodes stated in a speech this week that the commission expected operators to assess risk taking into account the “financial situation for a consumer.” Rhodes claimed that other factors were at play when it was suggested to him that even though the commission may not have explicitly instructed operators to conduct intrusive checks, they were being forced to do so for fear of failing to assess the financial situation of customers.
“There are operators that we know who, as part of their business model, don’t want to be involved in high-staking gambling as much as they would have done in the past,” he said. “The fact that bets are up in the last year among the largest operators and active accounts are up suggests that actually the number of people gambling is pretty stable.”
Rhodes stated in his speech this week that large operators have experienced a decline in gross gambling yield of almost 16% and a rise in total staked of more than 13%. Rhodes responded, “very unlikely to be the first interaction that somebody has,” when asked if it was appropriate to request financial information from bettors. He also stated, “Bookmakers will typically have triggers based on earlier levels of spend, frequency of spend, changes in patterns of play.”
He did, however, acknowledge that punters might be hesitant to disclose financial information. “I think in any walk of life I can understand why people don’t necessarily want to share information,” he said. “It’s something we are all conditioned to treat with caution and to be careful what information we share.”
Scully stated in a speech last month that the government was considering introducing checks that would not require customers to provide their personal information.
Rhodes said: “What we would like to see for the future, and it is something that the now prior minister spoke about recently, which we have been working on is the ability to try to have frictionless checks that avoid people needing to present evidence.
“What we are not trying to do is create an unnecessary level of friction for people who are gambling and have no reason to necessarily stop, it is well within their means, they understand what they are doing and that is their choice to make. We have always said that.”
Martin Cruddace, chief executive of Arena Racing Company (Arc), claimed last year that affordability checks were to blame for a decline in horseracing betting of £800 million, which could result in a £40 million annual revenue loss for the sport.
Rhodes stated that it was too difficult to attribute that decrease to a single factor, citing figures indicating that only one percent of accounts were responsible for seventy percent of horseracing betting customers’ profits. He asserted that the behavior of the most prolific racing bettors could be influenced by other factors, including the aging of the racing audience, the economic situation, and the small field sizes.
Rhodes, on the other hand, stated that he had met with the BHA and was scheduled to meet with them again. Additionally, he had visited Chepstow and was scheduled to meet with Arc, the track’s owner. “The dialogue obviously continues. We completely understand, as we would with any industry, any sport, any group of people betting, that we should have a sensible dialogue with them about what we see going on.”
The Racing Post has received inquiries about affordability checks from a number of individuals who have admitted to either having bet with operators of the black market or considering doing so. The Betting and Gaming Council has also recently released figures that claim there was a spike in black market gambling during the World Cup in Qatar last year, and they warn against getting complacent about the situation.
Rhodes said: “I don’t think you can argue that improving things in the legitimate market shouldn’t happen because that might drive people to illegal gambling. I don’t accept that and I do think there has been some lazy argument about this.
“When you talk to operators in other countries, and many of those operators also operate here, they point to Great Britain as the example of how to reduce the risks of illegal gambling by having a very liberalised market.”
The white paper’s recent reshuffle by prime minister Rishi Sunak is expected to cause additional delays.
———————————————————–
If you want more free horse racing tips from professional horse racing tipsters, then look no further than our free mailing list. Get your free horse racing tips here.
According to the findings of the survey, affordability checks pose a “significant threat” to black market betting.
Racecourse Media Group conducted a major survey and found that 15% of respondents either bet or know someone who bets with a black market bookmaker. As affordability checks drove punters away from the sport, Racecourse Media Group observed a “material decline” in betting turnover on the sport last year.
As he presented the findings of a survey that was conducted among 3,500 RTV members, Martin Stevenson, chief executive of RMG, which is the parent company of Racing TV and manages the media rights of 35 British racecourses, detailed the decline in revenue.
The Gambling Commission’s chief executive, Andrew Rhodes, claimed in the Racing Post the previous day that his organisation had not mandated the implementation of affordability checks, which are anticipated to be included in some capacity in the government’s long-awaited gambling review white paper.
Bookmakers assert that the regulator’s expectation that businesses take into account the financial circumstances of their customers when assessing risk forced them to adopt the contentious checks.
Stevenson said: “The widespread response to the Racing TV survey shows how much the ongoing Gambling Act Review, combined with their recent experiences, is affecting our members.
“Our survey revealed that 15 per cent of respondents bet, or know someone that bets, with an unregulated bookmaker, which is of real concern. With millions of customers betting on racing, the findings of this survey indicate that hundreds of thousands of punters are potentially using the black market.
“This survey is clear evidence that shows that the black market is real and substantial and suggests that affordability checks are having the effect of moving a significant number of affected punters out of the UK-regulated environment and exposing them to potential harm.
“This must be a Pyrrhic victory and the opposite of what affordability checks set out to achieve.”
Four-fifths of those polled said they would not like to see bookmakers impose limits, and 92% said they would think about using a different bookmaker if they were not required to provide any personal information.
“We have shared this information with the Gambling Commission and hope they can take account of this in their assessment of the black market,” added Stevenson. “The evidence suggests it exists and is only building.
“Nearly a quarter [22 per cent] responded ’yes’ to the question on whether they had been asked for personal information, with 50 per cent refusing to comply. This is a strikingly high percentage, demonstrating consumers’ rejection of this intrusion on their leisure activity.
“The inference that 22 per cent of racing punters are at risk of harm is very challenging to believe and appears excessive when compared against the overall prevalence of problem gambling.
“In addition, RMG has seen a material decline in online betting turnover on horseracing in 2022. Everyone involved in the industry should be deeply concerned. The impact of affordability checks is that the sport is suffering a heavy financial toll.”
When gambling minister Paul Scully, who had criticised affordability checks, was moved as part of a government reshuffle, it was bad news for racing. Stevenson said, “I hope that the new minister with responsibility for horseracing and gambling will also consider the results of this survey as part of the ongoing work on the Gambling Act Review.
“It has been long overdue, in this process, to consider the attitudes of the consumers themselves in regard to how they choose to spend their time and money. I was very glad to hear the former minister acknowledge that in his recent speech.
“Applying universal limits does not recognise the wide range of natural betting behaviours, events, seasonality or differing individual financial circumstances. The undoubted highlight of the jumps season, the upcoming Cheltenham Festival – which is the major focus for many punters – is clearly a case in point. To that end, I was pleased to see the former minister stating that a one-size-fits-all approach was not the intention.”
———————————————————–
If you want more free horse racing tips from professional horse racing tipsters, then look no further than our free mailing list. Get your free horse racing tips here.
Jumps icon Nicky Henderson calls affordability checks ‘terrifying and ridiculous’.
Jumps legend Nicky Henderson is the latest high-profile figure to condemn the intrusive affordability checks, which have the potential to cost British racing millions of pounds. Henderson has characterised the practices as irrational and called them lunacy.
John Gosden, Henderson’s Flat counterpart, recently expressed his concerns that the checks would force people to bet on the black market, which “would spell disaster” for betting and racing.
That was followed this week by Harry Herbert, Highclere Thoroughbred Racing’s well-connected racing manager, saying the industry could be “ripped to pieces” by the checks. The checks involve bookmakers asking punters for bank statements and other financial information under pressure from the Gambling Commission.
Before the government’s long-awaited gambling review was released, the industry regulator was widely criticised for successfully implementing the contentious checks.
Henderson, a six-time champion trainer who has devoted much of his life to the sport, has now entered the discussion, slamming the checks and empathising with those impacted.
He told the Racing Post: “It’s ridiculous and appears to be an invasion of privacy. There’s no doubt it’s having a drastic impact on punters and I have every sympathy with them. I’m in total agreement with what everyone has been saying.
“The money people bet on racing flows back into the sport, so we’re all losers in this. It doesn’t bear thinking about the dangers of the black market, but that’s where punters could be driven back to.
“I’ve no experience of this because I don’t bet and nobody has ever asked me for statements, but that’s not the point and I wouldn’t like it if I was asked for all sorts of information and had to go through that examination before having a bet.”
Henderson, whose late father Johnny is credited with saving Cheltenham from redevelopers in the 1960s, is behind some of the biggest names in jump racing, like Sprinter Sacre, a powerful chaser, and Constitution Hill, the most recent pin-up boy.
He backs campaigns for responsible gambling, but he thinks that the new methods for determining a person’s ability to bet go too far.
“The damage it could do is really frightening,” he added. “We’ve got enough problems on our hands in the industry and don’t need this. It’s lunacy, sheer lunacy. I read what John Gosden and Harry Herbert have said in the Racing Post and go along with it – like everyone would. It’s absolutely crackers and it’s terrifying to think of the damage to racing’s finances.
“You can’t blame punters – I wouldn’t want to go through that and I don’t see why they should. There is a point in preventing people from getting into trouble and that’s very important. But, at the same time, these checks and what they’ll lead to are terrifying.”
When it is released in the coming weeks, it is anticipated that the government’s long-delayed gambling review white paper will include suggestions regarding affordability checks.
Paul Scully, the minister in charge of gambling, indicated that he was in favor of “frictionless” checks to assist in preventing people from suffering harm from gambling. He also stated that he did not believe that the government or the Gambling Commission had the authority to tell people how much they could afford to gamble.
Scully met with members of the Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF) this week to talk about restrictions and a minimum bet guarantee, as well as affordability checks and their impact on punters and the horse racing industry.
Benjamin Fellows, on behalf of the HBF, said: “We felt it was a constructive meeting and the tone echoed that of his speech at the Betting and Gaming Council AGM last week.
“We welcomed the opportunity to engage with the minister and to seek that horseracing bettors’ interests are appropriately considered in the forthcoming white paper. We hope that the dialogue will continue following the white paper’s publication.”
———————————————————–
If you want more free horse racing tips from professional horse racing tipsters, then look no further than our free mailing list. Get your free horse racing tips here.