New UK laws prohibit autoplaying more than 25 spins a time

[funnymunny]

Yep see my draft petition over on 2+2, just posted the latest draft....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Hmmm - some potentially valid points you've made. I tend to do other things whilst playing poker (watching movie, checking emails, etc), so generally limit myself to ~6 tables. As such, I don't see much of an issue with the removal of automation. However I can see where players who are playing a lot more tables may be impacted.

Please note that it's likely the rules were written in order to protect the recreational player. Automated top-ups could be viewed as a running tap on their balance. (Assuming they're going to be losing), without automated rebuys & top-ups, these players can see their balances at the cash tables dropping and have to make a conscious rebuy decision in tournaments. Therefore may be more alert to losses & as such, in a better position to limit them.

I can see your 2+2 thread has already gained traction & perhaps adding some content about how this functionality can be advantageous to new and/or recreational players (rather than the current focus on the strategy of the skilled multi-tabler) will help(?).

I don't want cross-post here, so will continue this over there (and/or PM)

 

[Richas]

Hmmm - some potentially valid points you've made. I tend to do other things whilst playing poker (watching movie, checking emails, etc), so generally limit myself to ~6 tables. As such, I don't see much of an issue with the removal of automation. However I can see where players who are playing a lot more tables may be impacted.

Please note that it's likely the rules were written in order to protect the recreational player. Automated top-ups could be viewed as a running tap on their balance. (Assuming they're going to be losing), without automated rebuys & top-ups, these players can see their balances at the cash tables dropping and have to make a conscious rebuy decision in tournaments. Therefore may be more alert to losses & as such, in a better position to limit them.

There are some possible edits I can suggest & I can see your 2+2 thread has already gained traction. I don't want cross-post here, so will continue this over there (and/or PM)

I agree. This protection stuff is quite hard. We all want maximum protection but we also want minimum inconvenience/grief too. There is a case for the rule, I think it is disproportionate and unreasonable when we have better things now, the analytics software is a much better approach than a crude ban.

My call is that this restriction has too big an impact on play for uncertain or non existent protection but the case for the restriction is real - I just don't think its place is in the petition against it

 

[fun4all]

Except it is clearly not.

That is just your opinion and frankly, it clearly is the case this act is just about tax.

The UKGC about consumer protection? Tell that to people affected by Smart Live Casino. Still operating with a UKGC licence but warned about on here https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/smartlives-dodgy-practices-no-pay.49487/?t=49487 multiple no pays. (my own personal experience of them, I hit a £25 number on roulette and they voided the spin). Tell that to people who had money stolen out of their UK licenced wallets on betfair.

You can argue that other jurisdictions are just as flaccid in this regard. However introducing this act in the UK will substantially reduce the choice available to the consumer. Reduction in competition and choice is always bad for the customers. Pinnacle sports have already pulled out, pretty much the only proper bookmaker available today.

The SOLE reason this act exists is to collect tax. It also has an obvious bad effect on end users with far less choice available. Pokerstars have also announced a cut in rewards for UK players due to this new regulation - how on earth can that be good for customers? Now I can understand that it is about the tax and I also believe that this act is going to happen and everyone just has to deal with it. I also understand that nobody is ever going to admit it is the case (because of these court cases etc) however don't try and pretend the UKGC is some sort of consumer protector, they most definitely are not.

 

[Richas]

That is just your opinion and frankly, it clearly is the case this act is just about tax.

The UKGC about consumer protection?
The SOLE reason this act exists is to collect tax. It also has an obvious bad effect on end users with far less choice available. Pokerstars have also announced a cut in rewards for UK players due to this new regulation - how on earth can that be good for customers? Now I can understand that it is about the tax and I also believe that this act is going to happen and everyone just has to deal with it. I also understand that nobody is ever going to admit it is the case (because of these court cases etc) however don't try and pretend the UKGC is some sort of consumer protector, they most definitely are not.

Well the biggest single additional protection is that we will no longer have sites offering games with undeclared RTPs, potentialy changing RTPs, potentially games where optimal play is altered unanounced - oh yes and the operator gets to be regulated too - so I will call your live casino example and raise you Everleaf and Purple Lounge where the operator (Microgaming) would have been on the hook for compensating players.

I really do not consider games offered without RTP and without proper licensing of the software suppliers to be ones that should be available.

It is ALSO about regulation and given that there are over 1000 UK Remote licences now whereas other regulated regimes offer handfuls or state monopolies the consumer choice is far better than other regulated markets.