Ladbrokes pays off problem gambler to keep quiet

[Casinomeister]

Yeah, I know it's a bit biased coming from the Guardian, but if these allegations are true, then it's off to the rogue pit with Ladbrokes.

Ladbrokes wooed problem gambler – then paid victims £1m

See Related Threads:

• Ladbrokes Comp Points
• Withdrawal at Ladbrokes
• Ladbrokes SE Help
• Ladbrokes Payout Time - Won 3 Spins
• Ladbrokes Payout Times?

 

[Casinomeister]

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.

Bloody hell!

 

[steveh35]

I don't go near Ladbrokes anymore they would not let me choose a deposit limit of less than £25 a month which I thought was wrong as I should be able to decide if I want a £10 limit at a casino, there was no option to take short breaks on the site either without going through an email process so I decided to close it down altogether.

I got a snotty manager agent who clearly did not like people taking up her time closing their account and having to plow through loads of questions I was glad to get rid of the shower, badly run and not customer friendly.

 

[SteveBr]

Wow!
How the other half live, eh.

Very damaging to Ladbrokes this if true. Paying him and the people he stole from so they don't inform the UKGC will cost them more than the £1 million they forked out there.

It's my birthday at the weekend, I bet I don't get a few grand in my account

 

[snorky510238]

I used to play the FOBTS (low rolling) at all bookmakers. They are all shockingly bad in terms of rtp but without doubt Ladbrokes were the worst.

 

[spiker1977]

ladcrooks.

 

[Casinomeister]

Ladbrokes Casino Review: Ethically Challenged Casino Managers

 

[Casinomeister]

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".

 

[lotusch]

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".

Exactly my thoughts.
Shocking story this.

I never ever played here myself as they never appealed to me.
For sports betting and stuff in use good ol' Paddy Power.

This should cost them dearly!!!

 

[dealer wins]

Just shows how bent this industry really is. And normal genuine £50 a week gamblers are subject to draconian SOW and ID checks. Joke really!!

 

[dunover]

What happened to the SoW here? Obviously this could be a historical issue before the SoW rules but nevertheless common sense? The lad's certainly broke now.

 

[SpinUk]

This is starting to look more like a criminal case than a civil case the further you look at it. Major, major issue for them, their licence and brand.

 

[Lemon]

Parasitic scum.

 

[Bloatgoat]

They settled to pay back to prevent any investigation from the regulator. But this is a bit odd. People can hide their gambling addiction for a very long and good time. It's like being in quick-sand, deeper and deeper to the point you cannot go back anymore. The VIP threatment is no diffferent then any other where they spoil their clients based on their estimated revenue. I was a VIP too in a local casino once; and they really did their best to keep me as a player haha. That's just part of the nature; get aboard the high-rollers and keep 'm satisfied.

In Holland was a simular case. A high roller who was an accountant of for example Subaru in the Netherlands and spend 23 million euro's in a local casino. The casino completely bypassed all the regulations by letting the guy enter the building used by staff and not visitors. This way there was a 'workaround' to not be noted on paper that often in the casino. At the end of the day; the casino and subaru had a settlement and the case was sort of closed.

But it's amazing to see on how lives are being destroyed by a gambling addiction. The guy proberly had everything and gambled this away in just a few years in time.

 

[snorky510238]

Yes sadly the more you lose in a casino the more you are lorded and made to feel special by the management. It’s not difficult to see the ulterior motive.

 

[conker]

The attempted cover up is the saddest part, if it turns out to be true. I believe Hill's have some previous with this sort of behaviour.

It really paints a very shady / greedy picture of the business of gambling. Let's hope there are some repercussions, should it come to light that they were preying on this man.

 

[Bloatgoat]

Thats what settlements are for. The people who had their money stolen are paid back. The guy who lost everything has nothing. And this whole situation is simply extinguished and dont see any legal actions taken into it. The casino proberly did start having a problem when it did not make that settlement.

 

[goatwack]

Ahh, Ladbrokes. The casino that prioritizes Responsible Gambling with its excellent RG tools.

Like letting you close your account but re-open it instantly

 

[snorky510238]

In some ways harsh as it may seem you can’t blame a casino for taking your money it’s what they are in the business to do. I have met some great pub landlords in the past but they didn’t restrict everyone to two pints a night for their own well-being. Gambling is a terrible addiction. I myself am a self confessed compulsive gambler. I have been to hell and back in the past believe me. The one thing that is absolutely definite is that you are the only one who can cure yourself. I never thought it would be possible and it took me years to get it under control and to gamble within my means. Now I really enjoy it. I think this is a thing that comes with experience as when you are younger you can’t see the wood for the trees so to speak.

 

[Nicola]

Shocking behavior

Rogued them across all my sites, no excuse for their motives here!

 

[snorky510238]

Again it begs the question is everything as above board as it should be? I have been shot down several times in the past for daring to even think some things within the industry may not be happening as thoroughly as we are led to believe. When you get a company like Ladbrokes coming under the microscope it makes you wonder. This won’t be an isolated incident surely. 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?.

 

[zreb]

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 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.

 

[Dinahnana]

Bad behaviour from Ladbrokes if this story is true. They should have followed the rules. The fallout is going to impact regular players in the long run. Again if this is true then the UKCG needs to pull the license. On a side note I thought gambling including online gambling was illegal in the UAE so another ball dropped by Ladbrokes by letting the player gamble from there.

 

[snorky510238]

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.

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.