Bloody hell!The gambler, a British citizen who ran a property business in Dubai, later admitted to having stolen from his clients in order to fund his high-roller habit, which cost him up to £60,000 in a day.
After five of his victims made a complaint against Ladbrokes for allegedly accepting stolen funds, the bookmaker agreed to pay them a combined sum of £975,000.
If these allegations are true - which I suspect they are, the UKGC should set an example and revoke their license. The UKGC "talks the talk" - let's see if they are willing to "walk the walk".
Like I have stated before who is responsible for allowing a player the opportunity to for instance play a £100 a spin. Surely it’s obvious to anyone that knows anything about gambling that a player using this option has a ‘problem’ and stands to lose vast amounts of money. With responsible gambling allegedly being highly prioritised how can any casino that genuinely backs this allow their players to access that option. IMO I don’t care who you are it’s blatantly obvious that only the smallest amount imaginable of the worlds population can legitimately afford to lose that kind of money. If something as important as SOW in this case was bypassed/overlooked for obvious reasons what other things within the industry follow the same path?.
I get what your saying but I think someone who can just have 1 spin at £100 and walk away win or lose is definitely in a very small minority IMO. Also someone who can punt £10k once or twice a month would be gambling a years wages for the majority of people in the UK. I just think £100 a spin is leaving the gate wide open for people to be tempted into something very dangerous. IMO someone gambling those sort of stakes may not initially think it’s a problem but it very soon could become one. As it just couldn’t be sustainable for a long period of time. I play mainly around the 40p mark and could well lose £400 in a session if I wasn’t disciplined. For someone betting £100 a spin that’s £100,000. There ain’t many people in the world that can sustain that for long. It doesn’t bother me in particular these options are there I have never spun more than £1 but I feel sorry for people who may wander down that path only to find there is no return. Just my opinion.I don't agree that anyone betting $100 a spin necessarily has a problem. Even if only 1/1000 people can reasonably afford that, that's millions of people. It's a big bet, but it's not exactly billionaire level. It's more like "successful lawyer" level if it's someone who can risk $10k once or twice a month (not every risk is a loss). Someone spending 10-20% of their annual income on gambling isn't necessarily a problem gambler, though personally I think over 10% is a bit silly. I'm far from rich, but I'll sometimes do a $100 lottery spin once a month or two.
Now, someone betting $100 spins for 4 hours a day? That's almost certainly a problem gambler.
Regarding the topic on hand though, as important as the discussions regarding whether casinos target or fail to protect problem gamblers are, I think the important point is the "paid a settlement with the stipulation that the victims don't inform regulators." Emphasis on the part about not informing regulators.
It would be interesting if the regulators act based on integrity and potentially confiscated a gambling licence for this behavior, but it seems like the usual course of action that takes place (in any big industry) is a shakedown, backroom meetings, a fine for a few millions is paid, and a public slap on the wrist.