Your opinions please...

Dicky Pride · 06-05-2013 9:24pm #1

I have written a number of articles on gambling because it's something that I struggled with in my 20s. Lost a fortune. However, I love talking about it and the psychology of it interests me greatly.

Nowadays I'm a casual gambler..mainly golf, but never horse racing or the things that used to relieve me of my money.

Anyway, I'm working on an article at the moment, just highlighting some of the "tricks" that bookies use to suck us into a spiral of money hemorrhaging...

One of the tactics used by them is something called "Reverse Withdrawing". If you are unaware of this, it is the process whereby after requesting to withdraw some money, you can then unrequest it.

So...if you are betting...and you get up to, let's say, 800 euro...and you're delighted with yourself and you choose to withdraw 600 of it. You tell yourself that you'll play around with the other 2. Then you lose that 200...and you want to go chasing it back. A year or so ago you'd be relieved that the 600 is now on the way to your bank so you can't get at it. The bookies now hold on to it, just for a situation like this.

You can call it whatever you want, but I call it devious.

Anyway...I wanted to do a little test with a bookmakers today. I had some money in an account and I withdrew it. I then opened a live chat with a staff member and asked them if they could process the withdrawal straight away as I was afraid that I would go at it again later and I needed that money. They took all my details and then kept me on hold for 10 minutes as they checked this out for me. They returned to say that this was now done for me and the withdrawal had been processed.

I waited an hour and then went into my account...I pressed the reverse withdrawal button and no surprises, it was still allowing me to reverse the withdrawal.

Genuinely, if I was to reverse it, and lose it all, I think I'd have a genuine case for the bookie to return it all to me. I'm of course not going to do that, but this is a very worrying practice.

montyrebel · 06-05-2013 10:07pm

IMO i dont think you would have any case, they can process it straight away but will probably still be sitting on their system for however long it takes.
My bank transfers and clearances etc usually take 3 days

Dicky Pride · 06-05-2013 10:24pm

montyrebel wrote: »

IMO i dont think you would have any case, they can process it straight away but will probably still be sitting on their system for however long it takes.
My bank transfers and clearances etc usually take 3 days

I'm not sure you understand what I mean.

Mezcita · 07-05-2013 11:55am

To me it's simply a case of having a degree of discipline. Meaning that it shouldn't matter whether the withdrawal takes five minutes or five days, you should still know when to walk away.

Easier said than done though.

Dicky Pride · 07-05-2013 12:23pm

Mezcita wrote: »

To me it's simply a case of having a degree of discipline. Meaning that it shouldn't matter whether the withdrawal takes five minutes or five days, you should still know when to walk away.

Easier said than done though.

I think it's a simple case too, but not as you see it.

If someone asks a bookmaker to process a withdrawal, and prevent the option to reverse the withdrawal...and that bookmaker says they will, and that they have...but that turns out to be lies...I think that leaves them culpable.

Bobeagleburger · 07-05-2013 5:27pm

If anyone has a problem with Reverse Withdrawing they should use bookies that don't have that facility. There's plenty that don't.

It certainly is a sneaky practice. If someone is a compulsive gambler they are going to use the reverse withdrawal. The bookies know this, why do you think they are loaded.

It'd be the same as a heroin addict knowing there was heroin lying round the house somewhere. It's going to be consumed.

Dicky Pride · 07-05-2013 6:30pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

If anyone has a problem with Reverse Withdrawing they should use bookies that don't have that facility. There's plenty that don't.

It certainly is a sneaky practice. If someone is a compulsive gambler they are going to use the reverse withdrawal. The bookies know this, why do you think they are loaded.

It'd be the same as a heroin addict knowing there was heroin lying round the house somewhere. It's going to be consumed.

Well I guarantee you, within six months, they'll all be using it.

Bobeagleburger · 07-05-2013 9:35pm

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Well I guarantee you, within six months, they'll all be using it.

Even betfair?

Paddy power let you withdraw cash from the shop.

If someone is reversing their withdrawals all the time and blowing it then it's time to quit online gambling.

okidoki987 · 08-05-2013 11:11pm

So do Boyles.

Dicky Pride · 09-05-2013 10:25am

rarnes1 wrote: »

Even betfair?

Paddy power let you withdraw cash from the shop.

If someone is reversing their withdrawals all the time and blowing it then it's time to quit online gambling.

Betfair is not a bookmaker.

Listen, the gambling snobbery would be expected if this were a topic on after hours but I suspect everyone on this forum has some experience of being a degenerate. I went through it about 8 years ago and would definitely consider myself an expert on the subject now. Ha.

Anyway, the thing that really annoys me is that people always stick up for the bookies. The usual line is churned out about "if you don't have discipline you shouldn't be betting" and the underhand tactics of the bookies is ignored.

Mellor · 10-05-2013 4:17am

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Anyway, the thing that really annoys me is that people always stick up for the bookies. The usual line is churned out about "if you don't have discipline you shouldn't be betting" and the underhand tactics of the bookies is ignored.

The thing that really annoys me is when people try to blame bookies.

I doubt its possible for the bookie to send the money to your bank account instantly. With a lot of credit transactions there is a processing time. During this time it can be cancelled by the vendor - just like a hotel hold fee, or a booking deposit that gets returned after 3 days.
The bookies aren't holding it for the entirety of the delay time. Presenting it like that is a bad is you want your article to be taken seriously.
Do the bookies insert their own delay into the process? Maybe. Is it excessive? No.

There's no trick here, its a facility to cancel a transaction. I don't see how it changes anything.
If the money was in your account instantly, then there is nothing stopping you from making a deposit instantly. Just like if you walked out of a betting shop with cash, you can turn around and walk straight back in.

Dicky Pride · 10-05-2013 9:24am

Mellor wrote: »

The thing that really annoys me is when people try to blame bookies.

I doubt its possible for the bookie to send the money to your bank account instantly. With a lot of credit transactions there is a processing time. During this time it can be cancelled by the vendor - just like a hotel hold fee, or a booking deposit that gets returned after 3 days.
The bookies aren't holding it for the entirety of the delay time. Presenting it like that is a bad is you want your article to be taken seriously.
Do the bookies insert their own delay into the process? Maybe. Is it excessive? No.

There's no trick here, its a facility to cancel a transaction. I don't see how it changes anything.
If the money was in your account instantly, then there is nothing stopping you from making a deposit instantly. Just like if you walked out of a betting shop with cash, you can turn around and walk straight back in.

The thing that annoys me is when people choose not to read a thread properly.

Let me break it down for you.

It used to be the case that when you withdrew money from a bookmakers, the money was going from your betting account and would then reach your bank 2-3 days later. However, the bookies became wise to the fact that many gamblers withdraw the money when they have just had a big win and don't trust themselves not to lose it all again. You can look down your nose at this behaviour all you want, and believe me, with your indignant, pompous tone, that's exactly what you're doing. Gambling is an illness, it often makes people do irrational things...things that when they reflect on, they can't believe they actually did. So, the bookies introduced an option where they can reverse a withdrawal. They will tell you that this is for the customer's convenience and other crap like that, but in actual fact it's to exploit their illness.

In the example that I gave above, I asked the bookmakers to process the withdrawal immediately, and remove the option of reversing. I told them that I was afraid that i would reverse the money and lose it. They said they understood 100% and then after a hold period of about 10 minutes, they said that it was all taken care of. But it wasn't, that was a lie. 2 hours later the option to reverse was still there.

I read a thread on this forum a year or so ago about a method of cheating that ladbrokes were using in their virtual racing, which was saving them hundreds of thousands of pounds each year. In reading through the replies it amazed me to see so many "Well if you're betting on cartoon racing, you deserve to lose you money". This attitude doesn't belong in a gambling forum - it's snobbery of the highest order and conveys a distinct lack of understanding for gambling and its problems.

To me, backing on cartoon racing is as stupid as backing on certain dog racing, and certain horse races or golf tournaments etc.

A lot of other people just dismissed the allegations and declared that there was no way that an international bookmakers would need to resort to such cheating. Even though it had been proved, and ladbrokes had been caught out. Some people just refuse to believe what's right in front of their noses.

Maybe this is why banks and governments of the past got away with so much.

The bottom line here is that a customer asked a bookmakers for assistance, and it never happened. The second from bottom line is the reverse withdrawals, a sneaky tool used by the world's sneakiest and underhand industry.

Mellor · 10-05-2013 1:23pm

Dicky Pride wrote: »

The thing that annoys me is when people choose not to read a thread properly.

I've read the thread tip to bottom, thanks.

It used to be the case that when you withdrew money from a bookmakers, the money was going from your betting account and would then reach your bank 2-3 days later.

I cant comment in your bookue, or you bank but mine still takes 2-3 days. Adding the reverse withdrawal gas t slowed it for me.

...You can look down your nose at this behaviour all you want, and believe me, with your indignant, pompous tone, that's exactly what you're doing.

How about you respond to the actual points I made instead of tossing I silts at me. I gave liked down my nose at anybody.

Gambling is an illness, it often makes people do irrational things...things that when they reflect on, they can't believe they actually did. So, the bookies introduced an option where they can reverse a withdrawal. They will tell you that this is for the customer's convenience and other crap like that, but in actual fact it's to exploit their illness.

I never said it wasn't an illness????
I said that regardless of the reverse option, bpeople with a gambling problem can still blow their money.

In the example that I gave above, I asked the bookmakers to process the withdrawal immediately, and remove the option of reversing. I told them that I was afraid that i would reverse the money and lose it. They said they understood 100% and then after a hold period of about 10 minutes, they said that it was all taken care of. But it wasn't, that was a lie. 2 hours later the option to reverse was still there.

When they process it and put it through. They can still cancel it afterwards. Just like any card transaction. So I'm not surprised the reverse option was still there.
It's very likely that the chat guy didn't have the power to edit the website coding, or he thought that you were referring to that transaction only. If you contact support and explicitly state you want the option gone, I imagine they will if they can. They tend to accommodate people who want to restrict their accounts

To me, backing on cartoon racing is as stupid as backing on certain dog racing, and certain horse races or golf tournaments etc.

If you can't grasp the difference you shouldn't be claiming your a gambling expert.

Dicky Pride · 10-05-2013 3:45pm

Mellor wrote: »

I've read the thread tip to bottom, thanks.

I cant comment in your bookue, or you bank but mine still takes 2-3 days. Adding the reverse withdrawal gas t slowed it for me.

How about you respond to the actual points I made instead of tossing I silts at me. I gave liked down my nose at anybody.

I never said it wasn't an illness????
I said that regardless of the reverse option, bpeople with a gambling problem can still blow their money.

When they process it and put it through. They can still cancel it afterwards. Just like any card transaction. So I'm not surprised the reverse option was still there.
It's very likely that the chat guy didn't have the power to edit the website coding, or he thought that you were referring to that transaction only. If you contact support and explicitly state you want the option gone, I imagine they will if they can. They tend to accommodate people who want to restrict their accounts

If you can't grasp the difference you shouldn't be claiming your a gambling expert.

My God. It really is impossible to deal with people like you. You're obnoxious and have decided that you're going to disagree with what I have to say, regardless of content.

I'll reply anyway, because it might make interesting reading for others.

I know the difference between betting on cartoon racing and betting on real racing, which I suspect you already know. However, there are gamblers out there, and believe me, they are in the majority, who will run into a bookies, have a quick look at the screen and just back whatever is favourite or whatever is being gambled on. They haven’t looked at form, jockey, trainer…they may as well be cartoons. This, whether you like it or not, is fact.

With regards to the reverse withdrawals, you clearly don’t know what I’m talking about because none of your replies make any sense to the situation that I am referring to. This time last year, you withdrew money from your betting account and it was gone, no hope of seeing it again until it hit your bank. This year you withdraw money from your account and they sit on it for 12 hours in the hope that you change your mind and start betting with it again. I’m sure there are many stories out there of people who have done that, and lost it all. Tough titties says Mellor – they’re one fault. True I suppose. BUT, in the situation that I have explained above, the agent said that it was sorted. Now can you see why I would think that you’re not really paying attention to what I’m writing? Because you said that “It's very likely that the chat guy didn't have the power to edit the website coding, or he thought that you were referring to that transaction only. If you contact support and explicitly state you want the option gone, I imagine they will if they can. They tend to accommodate people who want to restrict their accounts”…I have already told you that they said they understood the request and they said they carried it out as per my instructions. But they did not. If they couldn’t do it, believe me, they would have told me that.

Bobeagleburger · 10-05-2013 6:48pm

Dickie, myself and a few others have tried to enter the debate but you are coming across as extremely condescending.

No wonder more people aren't replying tbh.

Dicky Pride · 10-05-2013 7:19pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Dickie, myself and a few others have tried to enter the debate but you are coming across as extremely condescending.

No wonder more people aren't replying tbh.

I suggest you re-read your previous entry into this thread.

I apologise if my posts read condescending but I've read enough threads in this forum to grow tired of gambling snobbery.

More people are not replying because so many gamblers are reluctant to admit, or give away that they have/had a problem.

ianburke · 10-05-2013 7:50pm

noticed the reverse withdrawal myself on a few different bookies.i reckon it must be worth a few hundred thousand to the bookies every year.they havent brought it in for no good reason let me tell you.

fsfg · 12-05-2013 9:41am

Mellor wrote: »

I've read the thread tip to bottom, thanks.

I cant comment in your bookue, or you bank but mine still takes 2-3 days. Adding the reverse withdrawal gas t slowed it for me.

How about you respond to the actual points I made instead of tossing I silts at me. I gave liked down my nose at anybody.

I never said it wasn't an illness????
I said that regardless of the reverse option, bpeople with a gambling problem can still blow their money.

When they process it and put it through. They can still cancel it afterwards. Just like any card transaction. So I'm not surprised the reverse option was still there.
It's very likely that the chat guy didn't have the power to edit the website coding, or he thought that you were referring to that transaction only. If you contact support and explicitly state you want the option gone, I imagine they will if they can. They tend to accommodate people who want to restrict their accounts

If you can't grasp the difference you shouldn't be claiming your a gambling expert.

Mellor, I don't agree with everything dicky is doing on this thread but I do feel his point is more than valid and you have made very little attempt to see it from his point of view.

A certain type of gambler must be seen as a vulnerable customer. This does not mean bookies don't make money or accommodate them but they must not exploite them.

Policies like the above one can be seen as a blatant attempt to exploite the weakness of this type of gambler. In your reply you ignore the essence of the issue and that is their inability to walk away. They have made an attempt to and that should be encouraged not fought. Some gamblers chase losses in that moment and need to get up and walk away and if they have no money left for the week this withdrawal makes all the difference.

You suggest it makes no difference because they can lodge money back in; that really only applies to the people this doesn't affect as bad and if in 2-3 days when the money does hit their account then so be it.

Schnitzel Muncher · 12-05-2013 9:54am

OP, gambling is an illness now is it? I suppose drinking alcohol is also an illness...

Just because you had a problem with gambling doesn't make it an illness.

Perfect example of someone not willing or able to accept responsibility for their own actions and blaming others as being enablers or whatever.

fsfg · 12-05-2013 11:14am

Schnitzel Muncher wrote: »

OP, gambling is an illness now is it? I suppose drinking alcohol is also an illness...

Just because you had a problem with gambling doesn't make it an illness.

Perfect example of someone not willing or able to accept responsibility for their own actions and blaming others as being enablers or whatever.

Gambling is not, addiction is

Schnitzel Muncher · 12-05-2013 11:32am

fsfg wrote: »

Gambling is not, addiction is

I'm aware of the distinction, OP may not be though.

Dicky Pride · 12-05-2013 12:56pm

Schnitzel Muncher wrote: »

I'm aware of the distinction, OP may not be though.

Flippancy aside, I assumed that people were aware that I meant that gambling addiction was an illness.

I'll be honest, I am surprised at the level of opposition that I am getting to this post. If it's to do with my attitude then I apologise, but that stems from the boards culture...people tend to dislike a poster so then find ways to dislike the post. It happens everyday.

Yes, an addiction to gambling is the problem, there is no gambling addiction forum so i was forced to start it here

Schnitzel Muncher · 12-05-2013 1:20pm

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Flippancy aside, I assumed that people were aware that I meant that gambling addiction was an illness.

I'll be honest, I am surprised at the level of opposition that I am getting to this post. If it's to do with my attitude then I apologise, but that stems from the boards culture...people tend to dislike a poster so then find ways to dislike the post. It happens everyday.

Yes, an addiction to gambling is the problem, there is no gambling addiction forum so i was forced to start it here

It's nothing personal (my response anyway), but I have an issue with a nanny state and personal responsibility, where we try to unnecessarily restrict or control something that in moderation has few side effects, which 95 plus percent of the population can use as it was intended to be used.

Not to get personal, but you had a gambling problem, I didn't, so why should my access to a service be restricted?

Dicky Pride · 12-05-2013 2:59pm

Schnitzel Muncher wrote: »

It's nothing personal (my response anyway), but I have an issue with a nanny state and personal responsibility, where we try to unnecessarily restrict or control something that in moderation has few side effects, which 95 plus percent of the population can use as it was intended to be used.

Not to get personal, but you had a gambling problem, I didn't, so why should my access to a service be restricted?

I'm genuinely confused here. Sometimes when I'm boards and people get in an argument with me I have to read back to see if they are reading the same thing as me.

Where have I said that people's service should be restricted?

Schnitzel Muncher · 12-05-2013 8:16pm

Dicky Pride wrote: »

I'm genuinely confused here. Sometimes when I'm boards and people get in an argument with me I have to read back to see if they are reading the same thing as me.

Where have I said that people's service should be restricted?

Sorry, I must be posting in the wrong thread, I thought this thread was against reverse withdrawals.

Dicky Pride · 12-05-2013 9:14pm

Schnitzel Muncher wrote: »

Sorry, I must be posting in the wrong thread, I thought this thread was against reverse withdrawals.

No, this thread mentioned that I think reverse withdrawals are underhand. What this thread is actually about is a punter asking a bookmaker to prevent him, in one particular instance, from being able to reverse withdraw. The bookie said they understood and then told them that it was done. But it wasn't. The bookie didn't not provide the help that the punter asked of them.

What should have happened was that the bookmaker should have done what the customer asked, and then suggested that the punter seek some help.

hots · 12-05-2013 9:25pm

I'd be surprised if the person at the end of the phone had the power to do this. She may have meant she put a note on the account to prevent mobile/shop withdrawals but gave you the impression that you would be unable to withdraw at all. Afaics it was poor communication.

With regards to telling you to get some help is that really their place to do that? What if you didn't have an addiction and they suggested you go get help? I'd be insulted anyway.

In an ideal world they'd have a "I don't want to be able to reverse this withdrawal" option when you withdraw.

Pretzill · 12-05-2013 9:43pm

I think a lot of online gambling tactics are underhand - a lot of areas to suck you in - I never bet until I discovered I could have a flutter from the comfort of home the only problem I had as a gambler was I never won! After losing far too much I asked to have my account closed and my name refused if I ever was tempted to rereg - hardly a week goes by without getting an email from same company with offers if I was truly addicted I'd find them hard to ignore thankfully I do!

Mellor · 13-05-2013 12:39am

fsfg wrote: »

Mellor, I don't agree with everything dicky is doing on this thread but I do feel his point is more than valid and you have made very little attempt to see it from his point of view.

I disagree. I do fully understand his point.
But I felt he was ignoring some important issues. My post was an attempt to highlight those. Namely, how they aren't stalling the money from moving, merely allowing you to cancel it easily, and that you can cancel any similar transaction before the feature was added.

Also;

Anyway...I wanted to do a little test with a bookmakers today. I had some money in an account and I withdrew it. I then opened a live chat with a staff member and asked them if they could process the withdrawal straight away as I was afraid that I would go at it again later and I needed that money. They took all my details and then kept me on hold for 10 minutes as they checked this out for me. They returned to say that this was now done for me and the withdrawal had been processed.

The OP doesn't mention asking to have the feature removed. But it subsequent posts a major criticism becomes the fact he was told it would be removed, and it wasn't. Now i'm not suggested he did request that, but maybe his request wasn't he wasn't as clear as he thinks - like the OP was clear.
Or, as I suggested, maybe the chat guy didn't have the ability to remove it, eg if it was part of the website coding that he didn't have access to. Which is a very real possibility. But was dismissed abruptly.

If somebody was to contact support, via email (not chat). And ask for the feature to be removed. Making sure the email only has one request so that its not lost in another issue (like a pending withdrawl). I imagine you get a clear answer. Either possible or not.

A certain type of gambler must be seen as a vulnerable customer. This does not mean bookies don't make money or accommodate them but they must not exploite them.

I agree. I'm not suggesting that the feature is purely for the punters benefit, I never said anything that would make a reasonable person think that.
And of course some people will reverse it on impulse and lose it all. That should be obvious.
The feature can at times, allow people’s issues to get the better of them. But imo blaming the reverse feature is simply avoiding the issue, it’s a catalyst to the issue but it’s not a cause. Even without the feature, they are still a problem gambler, taking full responsibility for all their actions would, imo, help they get over their problem quicker.

You suggest it makes no difference because they can lodge money back in; that really only applies to the people this doesn't affect as bad and if in 2-3 days when the money does hit their account then so be it

I wasn’t suggesting that they deposit again in 2 or 3 days. I meant they make a separate deposit at the moment*.
Eg
They win $800, withdraw $600 and keep $200 to play.
They lose the $200 pretty quickly, so they decide to deposit $300 from their credit card. At the time it’s sounds reasonable as they have $600 hitting the card in a day or two.

I’d be willing to bet that before the reverse withdrawal feature, the above string of events was pretty common.

*It doesn’t even have to be online. Have you ever seen people win a few quid early on at the races or whatever. Then put some winnings into a separate pocket so they only bet with the rest. What happens they the betting fund runs out.

fangee · 14-05-2013 7:33am

Not sure I should comment but I'll give it a go.

Seems the main problem here is the "tactics" being used by bookies to take your money ? "underhand" is what I think you said.

Well surely advertising is a tactic. Surely offering better odds than another bookie is a tactic ? Offering guaranteed odds is a tactic ? Money back offers ?

I'm no fan of bookies and I have seen some awful sights over the years. The worst being a local bookie allowing children as young as 12 on to their premises to back dogs and horses and no surprise to see the same blokes who are now in their 20's- 30's in the bookies.

However, from what you have said I don't see your point. OK so I can now reverse withdrawal ? I'm thinking this is a problem for you. You win €800. Bank €600 and play with the other €200 and when this is lost you want to use the €600 ?

Well I'm guessing that it's only a matter of time for you. By that I mean if you banked €600 in good faith and intended to use that money constructively but due to your addiction you were willing to risk it all again then I presume you would do this as soon as the money hits your bank account anyway. Does it matter if you lose it today or in three days time ?

You are a self confessed gambler (i think you have said this) so it doesn't really matter when you can avail of your funds. You are going to lose them. Today, tomorrow or in three days when your withdrawal hits your account.

It's not an underhand tactic. It's business. Their business is to take your money. It's about the choices YOU make in life. You have to accept responsibility for your actions.

People make bad decisions in life but not accepting the consequences of your actions is the real problem.

Should we close all pubs to deny the people who enjoy a drink but to help alcoholics ? Would alcoholics find somewhere to buy alcohol whether pubs were open or not ?

Should we close all bookies for the same reason ? Go to countries where gambling is illegal and see who runs the industry there and what tactics they use.

If my next door neighbour goes to a car dealership and buys a new BMW on a monthly plan that is beyond his means does that make the dealership culpable or my neighbour for not grasping the reality of life ?

I advise you to continue with your therapy and rehabilitation but I don't think this forum can be of any help to you. If you were a drug user who wanted to stay clean would you hang with and converse with current users ?

I hope I'm on topic and I wish you all the best. I can instantly think of 3 old friends who have all taken their life (over a 15 year period) due to gambling problems. I would never blame a bookie. Ever. Taking responsibility for your actions and realising that you have a choice is the crux of it for me.

fsfg · 14-05-2013 12:54pm

fangee wrote: »

If my next door neighbour goes to a car dealership and buys a new BMW on a monthly plan that is beyond his means does that make the dealership culpable or my neighbour for not grasping the reality of life

I won't comment on the rest if you can't grasp the difference between advertising and the issue in this thread.

If the above is a real life situation, tell your neighbour he might have a case as per the consumer protection code. The financial services ombudsman is his first point of call

fangee · 14-05-2013 12:59pm

fsfg wrote: »

I won't comment on the rest if you can't grasp the difference between advertising and the issue in this thread.

If the above is a real life situation, tell your neighbour he might have a case as per the consumer protection code. The financial services ombudsman is his first point of call

Grade A. Well done. Superb contribution.

TrueDub · 14-05-2013 2:02pm

The discussion stays civil, or it will be stopped. Attack the post, not the poster.

Dicky Pride · 14-05-2013 5:48pm

fangee wrote: »

Grade A. Well done. Superb contribution.

Fangee, from looking at your other posts, it's pretty hard to take you seriously.

Nice one. Didn't really get to see much but happy with 2 performances. Had €300 on Brandt for the US Open last night because I feel he will be in tip top shape for it. Woke up to Streelman finishing 2nd at 80's.

I make that a free bet on Brandt for the next major and with change. Had €30 EW on Streelman. That's a 20/1 winner in my book !!!

Will have another €200 on snedeker today.

Sober up and then start studying for this week. A two day process.

There are people like you on internet forums all over the world - you feel the need to tell people your stakes...to make it seem like you're a big time gambler.

I haven't had a bet in about 15 years now so I won't take advice from you if that's okay. In fact, from reading all your posts, you have a bigger problem than i ever had. But that's a separate issue for a separate time.

I understand, and agree that people are responsible for their own actions, and some of what you say would make sense if gambling wasn't a particularly dangerous past time. The reality is that it has done more damage to families in this country than drugs, but doesn't get the same level of respect.

When you're dealing with something as powerful and as vulnerable as a gambling addiction, then there should be a tighter rein on how it's operated. I do think that there is too much gambling advertising. And I do believe that reverse withdrawals are underhand activities, but if you read the thread again you will see what I'm most annoyed about is the situation whereby someone asks a bookmaker for assistance, and is ignored. This is a dangerous practise.

People on this forum can come on here all they want and criticise people with gambling problems but i bet a lot of those people wouldn't be too comfortable with us taking a look at their gambling habits.

Fangee, you have a gambling problem, anyone who would read through your old posts could see that, but you are deluded, and what's even worse is that you're looking down your nose at people who are exactly the same as you.

GEM_13 · 14-05-2013 7:02pm

OP,i do understand the point you are making.If the customer asks to withdraw their winnings,that decision should be respected and it should be transferred asap to the account/card provided.

However,bookmakers are there to make money and they know that someone with a gambling addiction is likely to want to have another bet sooner rather than later.This is why reverse withdrawing is an option.It may not seem morally correct to a person who has been through a horrible gambling addiction and come out the other side in a better place but, it is just another way for them to ensure that some(if not all)of the money they may lose is re-invested with them.

Fangee made a terrific point when it was pointed out that the gambler will lose it in the long run anyway even if it was transferred into an account in a couple of hours.It seems to be that most gamblers think they are going to lose and almost accepting of the fact they are going to lose the money they have in their pocket/in their accounts when start a gambling session.

It is a sickness that gets next to near no attention compared to alcoholism or drug addiction in this country.Do the bookies do enough to help problem gamblers?Probably not.The 'Gambleresponsibly' slogan is there as an out for the bookmakers-a sort of 'Well, we told you to be careful'.How often would a bookie tell someone they have had enough-why would they while they are making money.It is all well and good people here saying you are responsible for your own actions but to someone with an addiction,i imagine it is very difficult to walk away from something that is constantly pulling you in.

Having said all that,i would love to know what gamblers expectations are when they enter into a gambling session? A lot of people will have a bet on a football match or a golf tournament and do not see it as a problem because it probably isn't. Some people might do a lucky 15 every Saturday and go home and check the results or watch the racing on Channel 4 or whatever-again not a problem, imo.

It becomes problematic when someone HAS to go to a betting shop everyday and spend their lunch break in there or spend an hour or two after work gambling.It appears a social outlet for some but for most,it is just the addiction that drives the need to go in.

If someone has to have a bet everyday,then i would assume they are a problem gambler.

I make this assumption having worked in the gambling industry for over 14 years.I have seen people win big,lose big and everywhere in between.I have come to the conclusion that winning money is secondary to most gamblers and it is the thrill of the chase that motivates a lot of gamblers.

The reason i say this is for the following reason-i have seen the example the op pointed out in real life where someone is up what we will call a substantial amount of money and lose it all and more in a couple of hours.When is enough profit enough?When a punter can walk away from a gambling session up,that should be enough.If a punter is up a few hundred euro and can't walk away,something other than money is driving him/her.

Should betting shops/sites be monitoring these people more closely and acting on what they may see as irresponsible gambling or is it a case of what he wants to do with his money is his own business?If a person is a yo-yo gambler like the example above,is the onus on the betting industry or the individual?

Problem gamblers know they are such-they may not admit it openly but they know.If they are not willing to help themselves and the betting industry doesn't provide any help for them,who is to blame?

Is it industry-driven or the indivduals problem.I have my own opinion but i would like to get other peoples view on it.

Mellor · 15-05-2013 1:26am

Fangee, you have a gambling problem, anyone who would read through your old posts could see that, but you are deluded, and what's even worse is that you're looking down your nose at people who are exactly the same as you.

I've no idea how you (or anyone else for that matter) is in a position to know who has a gambling issue.

I fully agree that gambling addiction is a serious issue. and many here likely do have problems. But going around accusing people is not a good, nobody knows the personal circumstances of anyone else.

Dicky Pride wrote: »

I haven't had a bet in about 15 years now so I won't take advice from you if that's okay.

You haven't bet in 15 years?
So when exactly did you set up this online betting account.

frat · 15-05-2013 4:05am

Dicky Pride wrote: »

I have written a number of articles on gambling because it's something that I struggled with in my 20s. Lost a fortune. However, I love talking about it and the psychology of it interests me greatly.

Nowadays I'm a casual gambler..mainly golf, but never horse racing or the things that used to relieve me of my money.

Anyway, I'm working on an article at the moment, just highlighting some of the "tricks" that bookies use to suck us into a spiral of money hemorrhaging...

One of the tactics used by them is something called "Reverse Withdrawing". If you are unaware of this, it is the process whereby after requesting to withdraw some money, you can then unrequest it.

So...if you are betting...and you get up to, let's say, 800 euro...and you're delighted with yourself and you choose to withdraw 600 of it. You tell yourself that you'll play around with the other 2. Then you lose that 200...and you want to go chasing it back. A year or so ago you'd be relieved that the 600 is now on the way to your bank so you can't get at it. The bookies now hold on to it, just for a situation like this.

You can call it whatever you want, but I call it devious.

Anyway...I wanted to do a little test with a bookmakers today. I had some money in an account and I withdrew it. I then opened a live chat with a staff member and asked them if they could process the withdrawal straight away as I was afraid that I would go at it again later and I needed that money. They took all my details and then kept me on hold for 10 minutes as they checked this out for me. They returned to say that this was now done for me and the withdrawal had been processed.

I waited an hour and then went into my account...I pressed the reverse withdrawal button and no surprises, it was still allowing me to reverse the withdrawal.

Genuinely, if I was to reverse it, and lose it all, I think I'd have a genuine case for the bookie to return it all to me. I'm of course not going to do that, but this is a very worrying practice.

Have u tried out your theory again, I think only waiting an hour may be the problem. I know it should be instantaneous but these things may take time. Also, did u a actually try to reverse the withdrawal or did u just check if the option was still available? I suggest u try it out again - I did it myself (out of curiosity) and I wasn't allowed reverse a couple of days later, so it took time.

Interestingly, I excluded myself from a certain bookmaker over 6 years ago (drunk one night and sent a rash email) and have never been allowed rejoin. I emailed them the following day saying I was pissed, didn't mean it etc. etc. I even tried to join a related entity in Australia and it wouldn't let me. Just shows that they take "responsible gambling" very seriously.

fangee · 15-05-2013 6:31am

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Fangee, from looking at your other posts, it's pretty hard to take you seriously.

There are people like you on internet forums all over the world - you feel the need to tell people your stakes...to make it seem like you're a big time gambler.

I haven't had a bet in about 15 years now so I won't take advice from you if that's okay. In fact, from reading all your posts, you have a bigger problem than i ever had. But that's a separate issue for a separate time.

I understand, and agree that people are responsible for their own actions, and some of what you say would make sense if gambling wasn't a particularly dangerous past time. The reality is that it has done more damage to families in this country than drugs, but doesn't get the same level of respect.

When you're dealing with something as powerful and as vulnerable as a gambling addiction, then there should be a tighter rein on how it's operated. I do think that there is too much gambling advertising. And I do believe that reverse withdrawals are underhand activities, but if you read the thread again you will see what I'm most annoyed about is the situation whereby someone asks a bookmaker for assistance, and is ignored. This is a dangerous practise.

People on this forum can come on here all they want and criticise people with gambling problems but i bet a lot of those people wouldn't be too comfortable with us taking a look at their gambling habits.

Fangee, you have a gambling problem, anyone who would read through your old posts could see that, but you are deluded, and what's even worse is that you're looking down your nose at people who are exactly the same as you.

Wow. It's impossible to take you seriously now.

You have contradicted yourself quite a few times already.

I thought I gave an honest opinion that basically laid the blame firmly at the door of the addict rather than the bookie.

Unfortunately some people will never accept responsibility for their actions and will always want to blame others.

I made points about more concerning underhand tactics, for example allowing underage gambling, but you choose to ignore this because it doesn't fit you argument.

I also mentioned suicides that I feel were connected to gambling but again you ignore this.

You'd rather trawl through my previous posts and make a judgement on me. What do you know of my disposable income or my responsibilities in life and how my actions affect others ?

I have at no point looked down my nose or judged anybody in my post. I am also very far from deluded. Not sure how you come to this conclusion. Are you suggesting that somebody who bets with stakes of €20-€30 doesn't have a gambling problem but somebody who stakes €200-€300 does have a gambling problem ? Surely the amounts are inconsequential ? Surely it's all about what you can afford to lose ?

I'll reiterate the overall point I was trying to make........ life is about choices and accepting responsibility for your actions.

You can't take me seriously ? That's fine. No problem. Move on.

I will say however that if you have gambled on any sporting event recently as you claim to now be a "casual gambler" then you can't also claim to have not gambled in 15 years.

It amazing what addiction can do the brain and how it can distort rational thinking.

Again, I'll sign off by saying all the best in the future with your problem.

I'm genuinely shocked that my original post upset you so much.

ps. I know of quite a few people who have closed accounts and upon trying to re-open them have had NO success whatsoever.

Also, I did respond to your original post because it is titled "your opinions please........". Maybe it's not the best title if other people's opinions tend to upset you so much.

Dicky Pride · 15-05-2013 8:12am

fangee wrote: »

Wow. It's impossible to take you seriously now.

You have contradicted yourself quite a few times already.

I thought I gave an honest opinion that basically laid the blame firmly at the door of the addict rather than the bookie.

Unfortunately some people will never accept responsibility for their actions and will always want to blame others.

I made points about more concerning underhand tactics, for example allowing underage gambling, but you choose to ignore this because it doesn't fit you argument.

I also mentioned suicides that I feel were connected to gambling but again you ignore this.

You'd rather trawl through my previous posts and make a judgement on me. What do you know of my disposable income or my responsibilities in life and how my actions affect others ?

I have at no point looked down my nose or judged anybody in my post. I am also very far from deluded. Not sure how you come to this conclusion. Are you suggesting that somebody who bets with stakes of €20-€30 doesn't have a gambling problem but somebody who stakes €200-€300 does have a gambling problem ? Surely the amounts are inconsequential ? Surely it's all about what you can afford to lose ?

I'll reiterate the overall point I was trying to make........ life is about choices and accepting responsibility for your actions.

You can't take me seriously ? That's fine. No problem. Move on.

I will say however that if you have gambled on any sporting event recently as you claim to now be a "casual gambler" then you can't also claim to have not gambled in 15 years.

It amazing what addiction can do the brain and how it can distort rational thinking.

Again, I'll sign off by saying all the best in the future with your problem.

I'm genuinely shocked that my original post upset you so much.

ps. I know of quite a few people who have closed accounts and upon trying to re-open them have had NO success whatsoever.

Also, I did respond to your original post because it is titled "your opinions please........". Maybe it's not the best title if other people's opinions tend to upset you so much.

lol, I'm not in the least bit upset mate.

I replied to the points of your post that I felt were relevant. That's obviously upset you a lot.

I believe you're deluded, you believe that I am. Let's just move on now.

Bobeagleburger · 15-05-2013 8:16am

People getting diagnosed with problems on an online forum. I've read it all now.

fangee · 15-05-2013 8:54am

Dicky Pride wrote: »

lol, I'm not in the least bit upset mate.

I replied to the points of your post that I felt were relevant. That's obviously upset you a lot.

I believe you're deluded, you believe that I am. Let's just move on now.

I don't think I accused you of being deluded.

TrueDub · 15-05-2013 10:53am

Folks, this thread is close to becoming more trouble than it's worth.

If you wish to discuss the topic, which I acknowledge is controversial, please do so in a respectful manner without questioning the other posters' motives or intent.

If you can't/won't do the above, please do not post.

Attack the post, not the poster - words to live by.

Your opinions please...

Comments