Gambling Harm Parliamentary Group Report Published

News Hound

Casinomeister News
Staff member
CAG
MM
Joined
Feb 15, 2019

shadow123

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Location
midlands
There wont many any UK casinos left if they bring in £2 limits,how the hell is that going to work with
tables games and progressive buy games like Slingo.Many players will either pack up or go to dark
places where they shouldnt.Might as well just ban UK online gaming and have done with it,no fun
knowing every bet is being monitored and if you exceed unknown deposit limits you will be bombarded
with demands for whatever personal stuff they think you should send.
Any good the UKGC has done for players is far outweighed by legislation which achieves nothing apart
from pissing everyone off.Rogue casinos are going to have a field day.
 

Slottery

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
It's still only APPG report, but for sure something need to be taken from that, otherwise their big work would be ignored :)

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.

Did read it through quite quickly earlier, quite many pages written with not that much to say.

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.
These were:
• 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.

What's only quite clear thing is more regulations to come. Wouldn't really apply UK license as casino owner at the moment before there's bit more idea what to be implemented and how. One of the most obvious like been discussed here many times is that £2 max bet rule, i guess with VIP programs, advertising and some more restrictions to slots how they can look and how long spin are quite simple to sort but that £2 max would make some difference if applied to all casino games (slots, table games and everything...).
 

pinnit2014

Ueber Meister
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
One of the reason's i didn't have much glee in the FOBT reduction as once the door was opened it was only a matter of time before aim was taken at online slots - even the report piggy backs on that development as a basis for online capping.

Interesting to see where they see a Gambling Ombudsman sitting - wonder if they're be such a reform of the UKGC that they'd bolt it on.
 

Slottery

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
At least they are able to make really simple comparison between online and offline

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.

Many could assume that people playing already online do change to non regulated site easier than people who mainly play FOBT:s on shops.
 

bamberfishcake

Senior Member
PABinit
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
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.
 

pinnit2014

Ueber Meister
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
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.

The Group has our esteemed MP, Sammy Wilson of the progressive DUP ( who thought the porn mag selling shops behind Castle Court in Belfast were the work of the devil) on it so I was rolling my eyes more than Harry reading it
 

EkJR

Meister Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Bit disappointed in their sections on Gamstop and NDAs as I contributed to both!

Overall I think the report, as someone has said, is a little one sided. I do like the SSO idea though.
 

pinnit2014

Ueber Meister
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
The tone, the language being used, gives the impression that the conclusion was already determined before any of the work was done.

Bits of it as well, especially when referencing the GC, appear to have a veil of vendetta as well. As Slottery commented on, the comment about FOBT capping not leading to increased traffic to illegal sites (eh?) shows a lack of understanding - worse is MacArthur of the GC actively downplaying the increased traffic to such sites.

Some decent bits in it but lost in a sea of populism.
 

shadow123

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Location
midlands
"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."

That is a very ominous statement implying a much tougher approach is going to be taken (is it possible)
and that a lot of new legislation is on the cards.Can only hope that when the treasury realizes how much
their cut from gambling is plummeting someone might say back off a bit.

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.
 
Last edited:

bamberfishcake

Senior Member
PABinit
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
I do like the SSO idea though

On the whole its a good idea, in theory, and would benefit the casinos. How nice to have the responsibility taken away and the risk of fines almost eradicated.

I think it makes sense for problem gamblers but not for the remaining majority. What happens if i get £100 birthday money i wish to gamble with but the system says my limit is a £30 deposit monthly.

The execution and application concerns me and although my deposits dont reflect a huge % of my monthly income I think its another freedom of choice and limit to potential fun and enjoyment.

I dont like the idea as i think its a mammoth task for clinical execution. So where will the responsibility lie if they get it wrong or will the a gambler who wants to spend more fudge their figures and income to circumvent the system.
 

bamberfishcake

Senior Member
PABinit
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
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.
 

Sidmanaman73

Dormant Account
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Location
UK
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.
 

paul7388

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Location
glasgow scotland
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.
 

bamberfishcake

Senior Member
PABinit
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
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.

Yes i guess what length of time you look at the ups and downs can easily be spun.

I like to think of it that since i started i have made more than i have lost on the whole but of course there are losses.
 

EkJR

Meister Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
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.
 

bamberfishcake

Senior Member
PABinit
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
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.
 

pinnit2014

Ueber Meister
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
Thats an excellent point.

I would rather they threw the money their after and their emotion and effort at nationwide pandemic testing or PPE.

I doubt many in the group have experienced a SOW request, the hope and subsequent dejection of a 22 spin bonanza re-trigger or taken a picture of their debit card 5 times for KYC.

I'd have much more respect for them if they came out and said 'I hate gambling and want it all banned', rather than trying to slice the onion a different way.
 

EkJR

Meister Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Are any new operators coming to the UK at all anymore? Doesn't seem like it. Was a heavily saturated market at one time but the choices are definitely dwindling.
 

Slottery

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
So guy telling in many places what all WE (they) have done to make UK better place to live :) These VIP programs are not a big loss to most, they convert to problem gamblers with quite high percent and especially in UK it's challenging only with SOW:s to let them play big amounts anymore (rich people don't play that much slots which is one reason they are rich).

Just really have to wonder these operators masochism who are now applying licensees to UK when knowing that something unforseen will be in place shortly (and anytime after somebody there get "great" idea).
 
Top