- Feb 15, 2019
A need for greater regulation But, the last few months have also shown even more clearly that far greater regulation of online gambling is needed to deal with the harms that can be caused by the industry and also that there needs to be a step-change in the pace of regulation. This year alone we have seen numerous cases of the industry acting irresponsibly.
Actions to raise standards by the Gambling Commission
In an effort to raise standards and reduce harm, earlier this year, the Gambling Commission asked the industry to come forward with proposals for reform in relation to game and product design, advertising technology and high-value customer incentives to gambling or VIP rooms. 10 On 1 April, the industry and the Gambling Commission put forward their proposals.
• Under 25s to be restricted from joining VIP schemes
• Tightened controls to be introduced for other VIP customers
• Online advertising rules strengthened to better protect vulnerable groups
Some progress made on safer product design, but the gambling commission noted that the industry must go further The APPG welcomed these proposals as some first steps towards providing greater protections but , noted the lack of hard evidence about their impact or how that would be monitored. They are also an acknowledgement by the industry that VIP schemes and advertising are harmful and need to be kept in check. Unfortunately, however, the proposals put forward are only a partial remedy.
As well as setting out that stake limits are not needed as limits can be based on affordability assessments (which as noted above are not yet effective) the industry has also resisted online stake limits on the basis that any limit at all would drive players to illegal sites. This is an argument that the industry has used before, particularly against the regulation of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. In fact, when stakes were reduced to £2 there was no evidence of gambling users being driven to illegal sites.
If the £2 spin rule comes into force, wonder whether the same limit will be applied to the National Lottery scratch cards?
First impressions as still working through the report and trying to find some substantial evidence in the links that back the suggestions.
At first glance it seems like a very one sided argument, tainted with emotion and little evidence or fact in the links provided.
A concise report should list numerous case studies and evidence whereas this displays advice from the ABSG - We provide independent advice with the aim of achieving a Great Britain free from the consequences of gambling-related harms. Are advisory boards such as these ever going to suggest anything otherwise? To achieve their mission statement they need to wipe out the industry. They are coming from a skewed viewpoint and are not open minded enough to give sound advice for the benefit of all.
Of course they could easily argue that my viewpoint is skewed due to my stance, but, then shouldnt somebody be on this board and contributing to the report from the other side. The only people consulted and considered on this are some victims, random agencies and advisory boards, the UKGC and the Casinos and Operators. What about the 95% or so players that dont fall into one of those categories? The people who apparently need the protection?
I am truly sorry for the loss of lives and the families affected. The report raises too many questions of the presented information in the links for me though. Focusing on two or three examples, not look at the whole picture i am afraid. It has the feel of a personal vendetta almost.
One 'fact based treasure of information', this report is based on, starts its conclusion by saying:
Gambling-related harm is a serious problem for the individual affected and people close to them
Der! I should have been on an advisory board, talk about easy money.
They should be questioned for not looking after us before anyone else is. Just for claiming a wage for this. What % of players also fall into this category? Where are the stats? Not saying they are not there but i have yet to find them or see any evidence or work of any calibre.
The report also notes that there is insufficient funding for the Gambling Commission, which has an annual budget of £19m is expected to regulate an industry that took £11.3bn from gamblers last year.
I can understand how regulation cost may relate to Industry value but this statement simply seems to be based on the fact the industry is worth billions and because regulation costs much much less there should be more money thrown at it??? How does that work, again - evidence? How much more? What for? What department at the UKGC is falling behind or needs new tech?
Just seen one report that started with this conclusion:
The studies reviewed identified a number of areas where the evidence-base is sufficient and where there is a notable lack of evidence.
That conclusion of the review of the studies shows some have evidence and some dont. It seems like information has been cherry picked and suggested rather than quantified.
Another fun fact is this little beauty:
Practitioners such as Dr. Gaskell and Dr. Bowden Jones note that in-game design features confuse players and distort their judgement and motivate them forward by reinforcing losses via the ‘near miss’ or ‘losses disguised as wins’ features.
Its 2020 and we have only just realised this? Please, this is poppycock.
Just my first impressions. Going to take a week to get through this and there are some good ideas but again, nothing seems backed with anything substantial evidence. If i want a report on something i want facts not opinions to be able to make an informed decision not an emotional one.
I do like the SSO idea though
Think the UKGC has more than made the point that players participating in online gambling are basically
bad eggs who spend money there while their children are starving and walking round in rags.
Agree this is the twisted misconception of a gambler.
My kids wouldnt be wearing the designer labels they are without the profit i have made from having fun over the last few years.
Limiting my budget would have done my finances more harm than good over the last few years and i would be worse off. If any board or advisory group wishes to see the proof i would happily provide but their not interested in the other side of the coin.
Agree with what you say.
But from their POV it can be spun the other way.
They would look at it that your finances were not great but fact you won money helped provide things for kids and make you better off. Then they would say that if you had not won losing money would have made you worse off and the kids would have got less.
Well they 'voluntarily' pulled £10 scratch cards in the backwash of the FOBT alterations but let's be clear about scratch cards. They are sold mostly in places where credits for Electricity and Gas and such are paid for, such as the local shop. These facilities are used by people who mostly cannot get these services on Direct Debit so are strategically placed to tempt out those who cannot afford them. A local retailer makes 5% of every lottery ticket sold and 6% of a scratch card. There is an uneasy equilibrium here for me yet the 'good causes' banner allows them to pretty much ride roughshod over what we'd deem in the interest of player. A quick scan of the Lottery website shows most scatchcards have an RTP in and around 70%. No one who frequents this forum and plays online would ever consider that some sort of value. Regards reform? Classic populist politics. The country is struggling with Covid, a social momentum apace with BLM and whilst everyone is distracted, start moving on implementing changes that really don't affect the masses who can control their spending but gives an impression they care. If they did, scratch cards would be binned.
These changes have been mooted for quite a while now, but now is the time where there will be the greatest impact. Unemployment rising, recession, pandemic etc. They can make sensationalist claims which will grab headlines and put another nail into the coffin for the industry in the UK.
Very disappointed about the lack of Gamstop comment. They had evidence from 25 people, including myself and they didnt mention inadequate SE terms or the fact that the UKGC delayed for a long period on NRR and essentially allowed a company where the ownership was, at the least, questionable..to continue operating.
Thats an excellent point.
I would rather they threw the money their after and their emotion and effort at nationwide pandemic testing or PPE.