Author Topic: Will Matchbook.com bite the dust ?  (Read 408 times)

Online Belker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16433
  • Karma: +0/-0
Will Matchbook.com bite the dust ?
« on: February 16, 2023, 06:47:24 am »
I haven't used Matchbook.com a lot since my last World cup fiasco   ::fds
But I had a look earlier and the 'in-play' markets were derisory as in back 1.80 or lay 3.50 and all fer pittance stakes.
It would seem Betfair (PP) have the upper hand again and blown them out of the water.

Online John m

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7254
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will Matchbook.com bite the dust ?
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2023, 10:52:46 am »
I haven't used Matchbook.com a lot since my last World cup fiasco   ::fds
But I had a look earlier and the 'in-play' markets were derisory as in back 1.80 or lay 3.50 and all fer pittance stakes.
It would seem Betfair (PP) have the upper hand again and blown them out of the water.

No equity in those markets .Brit Bookies are all looking for Proof you can afford to lose its law over there now .
"War: a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other."

Offline Rat Catcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22698
  • Karma: +34/-65535
  • Part Time Amateur Scum
Re: Will Matchbook.com bite the dust ?
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2023, 01:26:32 pm »
Eddie Hearn was promoting a pool betting outfit a couple of years back... with a deduction of 30% in most markets! Is that still around?

Online John m

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7254
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Will Matchbook.com bite the dust ?
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2023, 07:09:45 pm »
HERE KEN BOOKIES NOW SOCIAL WORKERS AND ADDICTION COUNCILLORS ..........Last weekend, the Gambling Commission chief executive made a claim in these pages that was greeted with incredulity and amazement by those familiar with the organisation's work: he claimed it was "nonsense" to say the intrusive affordability checks blighting punters and doing serious damage to racing's revenues were the work of the betting regulator.

Andrew Rhodes's rationale for making that claim was that the regulator has not explicitly mandated that bookmakers should demand pay slips, bank statements and tax returns from their customers.

But, he conceded, the Gambling Commission had made it clear to bookmakers they must have "proportionate thresholds" for betting activity above which firms are expected to consider customers' financial circumstances and their ability to 'afford' their betting. Failure to do so could result in huge fines for bookmakers, or even the loss of their licence.

How firms satisfy this regulatory requirement, Rhodes stated, was up to them. But how else are bookmakers supposed to consider their customers' individual financial circumstances, except by asking bettors for pay slips, bank statements and tax returns?

The situation is compounded because the Gambling Commission refuses to define what those "proportionate thresholds" ought to look like, preferring instead some ambiguous waffle about "average available income" and the distinction between "disposable" and "discretionary" income. Bookmakers, caught between the rock and a hard place of swingeing punishments and impossibly vague guidelines, have understandably applied the precautionary principle, meaning tens of thousands of ordinary, responsible punters have already been caught up in affordability checks.

It is akin to the German police declaring that anyone found driving "too fast" on the autobahn will be hit by massive fines and possibly lose their licence, refusing to clarify what "too fast" means, and then, when the network slows to a crawl because the roads are full of nervous Teutonic motorists tootling along at 20mph, saying, 'Well, we haven't imposed any speed limits, so it's nothing to do with us'.

If the Gambling Commission genuinely does not think affordability checks are the product of its own regulation, then it is oblivious to the obvious consequences of its guidelines. If – as seems more likely – it is claiming innocence on affordability checks because it recognises how controversial they are and wishes to avoid scrutiny, then it is treating bettors with contempt and misleading both consumers and the political masters to whom it supposedly answers.

According to a Racing TV survey released last week, more than a fifth of racing bettors have already been asked to supply personal documents such as payslips and bank statements, and the fear now is next month's Cheltenham Festival will prove a seismic moment in this saga for all the wrong reasons. Many punters whose betting activity the rest of the year is under the bookmakers' current "proportionate thresholds" are liable to be hit with demands for financial documents, simply because for one week of the year they significantly increase their betting budget.

While at most bookmakers these thresholds remain opaque, we know that at 888, owner of William Hill, the affordability check bar has been set at £500. This is a sum many recreational punters would regard as a conservative bank for the festival, yet, at some bookies, it will be enough to generate freezes on activity until sensitive financial documents are provided.


Cheltenham Festival: starts on March 14
Cheltenham Festival: could prove seismic moment in affordability checks saga
Credit: Edward Whitaker
The madness of that figure is highlighted by the fact merely attending the festival would be deemed potentially 'unaffordable' on the same basis. At the time of writing, a three-star hotel room in town on the opening night of Cheltenham will set you back more than £400. A Tattersalls ticket for the Tuesday is £72. Throw in food, drinks and transport, and you're looking at close to £600 for the day. Is the Premier Inn going to start demanding bank statements at check-in?

It is absurd and offensive that people attempting to deposit a few hundred quid with a bookmaker next month are going to be treated as though they are incapable of making the most trivial of financial transactions without the nannying oversight of a bookmaker's compliance operator, but be under no illusions: this is a situation inevitably created by the Gambling Commission's overweening and ill-conceived regulation.

The commission's refusal to even admit it is the architect of affordability checks indicates the seriousness of the situation facing racing and bettors. The only real form of recourse, and the only hope that the out-of-control regulator can be stopped before catastrophic damage is done to racing, is for the government to step in. Yet the prospect of that happening, which seemed relatively positive just a few weeks ago when the gambling minister Paul Scully declared it was not the regulator's job to determine what people can afford to spend on gambling, has now receded.

Scully has been reshuffled, having been in the job for less than four months. His successor - who more than a week later has still not been appointed - will be the sixth minister since the gambling review, which we hope will provide clarity about what is and isn't expected from bookmakers, was announced in 2020.

Clearly, gambling reform is not near the top of prime minister Rishi Sunak's priority list. But if the political class does not care much whether your rights are curtailed by a regulator, or that the collateral damage is a centuries-old sport loved by millions and a successful rural industry, what politicians undoubtedly do care about is votes.

Thankfully, Racecourse Media Group, the racecourse-owned parent company of Racing TV, has just launched a letter-writing campaign that enables bettors to quickly and easily alert their local MP to their concerns about affordability checks and the Gambling Commission's behaviour. You can sign the letter by following this link. If you care about your rights, or the future of racing, I urge you to do so before it is too late.
"War: a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other."

 


Show Unread Posts