Paddy Power guilty of encouraging problem gambler to bet more

mansize · 01-03-2016 02:47PM

diomed wrote: »

Gambling is only an addiction if you are losing.

The vast majority lose

Hulk Hands · 01-03-2016 02:51PM

mansize wrote: »

He strikes me as an industry insider- very much spinning

I struggle to get a bet on with any bookies these days so I basically despise each and every one of them.

PP were actually somewhat praised in areas yesterday for owning up fully to the incident and giving an unprecedented sum to charity, which to answer the previous posters question, is different from a fine. The laws are really shady in this area and a fine of that size would never hold up in court if they fought it. I'm not defending them, it's nothing more than PR spin from a newly merged 'super company' that don't want anything to tarnish their new arrival. But to think that fines of £280k are normal for relatively common cases like this these days is incorrect.

diomed · 01-03-2016 02:53PM

mansize wrote: »

The vast majority lose

Under the Data Protection Act you can ask for the information the hold about you, and find out if you win or lose. This will only work if you bet by phone or online.
I asked Paddy Power. They gave me incorrect information, the profit was understated. And they also should give you your "customer attributes" - the notes they have made about you. There were none on my file!

MarinersBlues · 01-03-2016 03:02PM

awec wrote: »

Has it?

Yes, there was a social aspect and the chance that you could win.
In fact bookies used winners as marks.
None of that happens with online, a few marks are just about tolerated but the business case has to be very compelling.

awec wrote: »

This thread seems to focus on the few that have a problem, and ignore the thousands that actually do gamble responsibly.

Yes there are people who are able to bet responsibly but society is about protecting the vulnerable.

What added value to society does online bookmaking offer that the shops didn't?
From what I have seen only a more convenient and efficient way to transfer money from an ordinary person to a bookmaker.

The detriments to society are reduced social interaction for all customers, and less barriers for problem gamblers to encounter
(i.e other customers/decent shop managers having a word in their ear or just the difficulty in betting on the QT, or worry of the stigma of pissing away al load of money)

I don't have a problem with betting. Clearly, from the former career I had. However it has been taken it too far and it will end up cannibalising itself.
That is the call I made when I decided to leave, I didn't see a future in it for odds compiling or trading perspective. It is all about "client management" everyone I know in the trade has the same fears.

mansize · 01-03-2016 03:22PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

I struggle to get a bet on with any bookies these days so I basically despise each and every one of them.

PP were actually somewhat praised in areas yesterday for owning up fully to the incident and giving an unprecedented sum to charity, which to answer the previous posters question, is different from a fine. The laws are really shady in this area and a fine of that size would never hold up in court if they fought it. I'm not defending them, it's nothing more than PR spin from a newly merged 'super company' that don't want anything to tarnish their new arrival. But to think that fines of £280k are normal for relatively common cases like this these days is incorrect.

They agreed to pay that as is was the profits from their ill gotten gains

Care to cite any of this praise...

cdeb · 01-03-2016 03:24PM

cdeb wrote:

Hulk Hands wrote: »

That makes no sense. Industry sources in the journalism sense who actually understand what they're talking about (and are the bookies biggest critics day to day). I'm not advocating going onto the PP blog

What parts of the article do you take issue with? Where do you suggest we read the opinions of these not-at-all-biased industry people?

You can't just dismiss a leading newspaper's comments on the matter as "drivel" with no reason whatsoever.

Just to flag this as well, seeing as HH has posted since on the thread.

Appreciate it may have been missed, but would be curious to know what part of the newspaper article you had issue with, where you would direct us to, and why industry journalist sources would be more critical than a major independent newspaper?

Simon2015 · 01-03-2016 03:38PM

These bookies shops all pray on the vulnerable they should all be closed down.

I mean what is the point of these shops ?

90% of time people will lose money.

And most of the time its the people who can least afford to lose money,

awec · 01-03-2016 03:45PM

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Yes, there was a social aspect and the chance that you could win.
In fact bookies used winners as marks.
None of that happens with online, a few marks are just about tolerated but the business case has to be very compelling.

Yes there are people who are able to bet responsibly but society is about protecting the vulnerable.

What added value to society does online bookmaking offer that the shops didn't?
From what I have seen only a more convenient and efficient way to transfer money from an ordinary person to a bookmaker.

The detriments to society are reduced social interaction for all customers, and less barriers for problem gamblers to encounter
(i.e other customers/decent shop managers having a word in their ear or just the difficulty in betting on the QT, or worry of the stigma of pissing away al load of money)

I don't have a problem with betting. Clearly, from the former career I had. However it has been taken it too far and it will end up cannibalising itself.
That is the call I made when I decided to leave, I didn't see a future in it for odds compiling or trading perspective. It is all about "client management" everyone I know in the trade has the same fears.

Online gambling is easier. The vast majority of people gamble online without issue.

Because a few have an issue does not mean online gambling is detrimental to society.

You are looking at it the wrong way round.

There is still a social aspect to it.

awec · 01-03-2016 03:45PM

Simon2015 wrote: »

These bookies shops all pray on the vulnerable they should all be closed down.

I mean what is the point of these shops ?

90% of time people will lose money.

And most of the time its the people who can least afford to lose money,

What is the point in anything?

It's fun.

MarinersBlues · 01-03-2016 03:47PM

awec wrote: »

There is still a social aspect to it.

What is social about betting online???

Simon2015 · 01-03-2016 03:52PM

awec wrote: »

What is the point in anything?

It's fun.

I don't see how it can be "fun" to lose money.

joeysoap · 01-03-2016 04:02PM

thomasm wrote: »

All betting sites should have to me made display a running total of clients winnings/losses over the years on the home screen when someone logs in. A simple plus or minus figure. Most people have no idea how much they lose and if they saw this it would be a wake up call for some

If you lodge say €100 to your PP account and start betting say small stake bets€1 Yankees, €10 doubles etc etc and have a reasonable number of wins and just for arguments sake your €100 lasts a year before needing a top up. And you had a bit of craic with your harmless betting , Cheltenham, footie on Saturdays, euro 16, strictly come dancing, 6 nations etc etc. At the end of the year if anybody asked you what % your losses were you would say 100% - you lost all your €100. But PP could show that your losses were maybe less than 20% , that throughout the year you managed to place €500 worth of bets and you lost €600 , less than 20%.

Hulk Hands · 01-03-2016 04:03PM

cdeb wrote: »

Just to flag this as well, seeing as HH has posted since on the thread.

Appreciate it may have been missed, but would be curious to know what part of the newspaper article you had issue with, where you would direct us to, and why industry journalist sources would be more critical than a major independent newspaper?

They're didn't mention the initial money laundering suspicion with the customer, which was part of the problem and would've helped avoid it had it been reported earlier. They didn't mention the customers indications that everything was fine on questioning. They didn't even mention the third case in this investigation into the money laundering fraudster banker. And it has no quote of PP/Betfairs response even though it was freely available all yesterday. I just have issue with shorthand articles which are basically copied from much longer pieces printed elsewhere. It leads to sensationalised headlines and incomplete facts. Common complaint in this forum with regard to tabloids

cdeb · 01-03-2016 04:07PM

OK - but I've asked you as well for some more in-depth articles, which you talk about but haven't linked?

Without that, you may well be making stuff up in your post for all I know.

mansize · 01-03-2016 04:14PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

They're didn't mention the initial money laundering suspicion with the customer, which was part of the problem and would've helped avoid it had it been reported earlier. They didn't mention the customers indications that everything was fine on questioning. They didn't even mention the third case in this investigation into the money laundering fraudster banker. And it has no quote of PP/Betfairs response even though it was freely available all yesterday. I just have issue with shorthand articles which are basically copied from much longer pieces printed elsewhere. It leads to sensationalised headlines and incomplete facts. Common complaint in this forum with regard to tabloids

The money laundering was mentioned in the articles I read

cdeb · 01-03-2016 04:19PM

There were two customers in the article linked at the start - Customer A was a person who was doing five jobs but still ended up homeless and separated from his wife and family over gambling debt, and Customer B was a person who was laundering money through the bookies. HH seems to be implying that the money laundering concern was to do with the Customer A?

Deise Vu · 01-03-2016 04:24PM

I'd like to think I am not a killjoy but I am seriously concerned at the way adverts for betting companies seem to be the mainstay of the Sports channels. Lives are ruined by drink and drugs but they are very visible to friends and family and it is easier to intervene. Gamblers with a problem, on the other hand, can lose everything in the space of months chasing losses.

My wife used to work for a bank. She told me lots of horror stories of accounts being drained and credit being maxed-out by one partner unbeknownst to the other. She also said there are many reasons banks ask to see your bank statements before issuing a mortgage (if they don't have them already). The obvious ones are they want to verify your wages over a period of time, to see you haven't bounced payments, to check for transfer to other loans you 'forgot' to mention but, believe it or not, you can have a perfectly operating account but if there is a bad pattern of payments to your bookies your goose is cooked. (A bad pattrn is excessive amounts, even if you can afford them, or increasing amounts, or increasing frequency of transfers).

I would ban on-line betting unless the bookies set up something like the inter-bank credit bureau to ensure clients don't have multiple accounts and I would limit betting losses to a percentage of verified income. That might sound a bit Big Brotherish but seriously it is just too dangerous a slope to be on.

bodice ripper · 01-03-2016 04:26PM

Bookies are trap houses, is this news?

muppetkiller · 01-03-2016 04:27PM

awec wrote: »

What is the point in anything?

It's fun.

Drugs are fun too. And just as addictive

Ice Maiden · 01-03-2016 06:03PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Bookies are trap houses, is this news?

They were apparently targeting him when he wasn't showing up though.
I guess if it was just business as usual they wouldn't have paid over that large sum.

ceadaoin. · 01-03-2016 06:42PM

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The Ladbrokes life ads really too the pi$$, it gave the impression someone could bet as their sole form of income

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgCzKQJyWdk

People believe it. I live in Vegas, the amount of people my husband has interviewed who said they moved here to become professional gamblers is ridiculous. Needless to say it didn't work out seeing as they are looking for a job.

I worked in the industry for years, in Ireland and the UK. I started out on the phones and sometimes it was depressing, there were customers who obviously had an addiction. I remember one time a woman called up in tears about her husbands gambling problem and they were losing their house and could we please stop his account. But we couldn't unless he asked us to.

Once someone said they had a problem their account was closed and couldn't be reopened. If they tried to open a new one it would be flagged up and closed also.

For most people though it's just a bit of fun. Most don't get into debt over it or gamble more than they can afford. Calling for online betting to be shut down is like saying all pubs should be closed because some people are alcoholics.

Billy86 · 01-03-2016 06:57PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

IMy wife used to work for a bank. She told me lots of horror stories of accounts being drained and credit being maxed-out by one partner unbeknownst to the other. She also said there are many reasons banks ask to see your bank statements before issuing a mortgage (if they don't have them already). The obvious ones are they want to verify your wages over a period of time, to see you haven't bounced payments, to check for transfer to other loans you 'forgot' to mention but, believe it or not, you can have a perfectly operating account but if there is a bad pattern of payments to your bookies your goose is cooked. (A bad pattrn is excessive amounts, even if you can afford them, or increasing amounts, or increasing frequency of transfers).

BIG warning for in online gamblers: this is true and putting €5 in twice a week (€520 a year let's say) is so, so, so much worse for your credit rating than putting in 260 in Jan and again in July, or even the full 520 both times.

If you want a loan, cc or mortgage, keep your deposits as sparse as possible and go in bulk of you need to.

gormdubhgorm · 01-03-2016 07:03PM

I don't think people realise how easy it is to get sucked into to betting over your normal limit, or betting too much.
For these reasons I closed my online accounts. It was too easy to just throw away money "for the craic" when drunk/bored/feeling lucky.
When it get's dangerous is when all your analysis/study of bets go out the window and you say f**k it and end up chasing lost money by putting on more.
This type of thing can only end one way.

The bit that get's me is that the bookies NEVER EVER give you your overall online account total and how much you are down/up since you created the account. As a result you have to keep track of it yourself, and we all know why that is...

It is much harder to over gamble if you have to physically hand over hard cash. I can see why online accounts are leathal for problem gamblers.

The one thing I will say about Paddy Power they do have a "take a break" and close account options on thier accounts.
I dd notice another article in the OP's original link that did make me laugh regarding Roy Keane
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/roy-keane-sues-paddy-power-for-using-him-in-braveheart-style-billboard-adverts-10379856.html

But in light of the problem gambler article it did make me feel a bit uncomfortable.

ceadaoin. · 01-03-2016 07:12PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't think people realise how easy it is to get sucked into to betting over your normal limit, or betting too much.
For these reasons I closed my online accounts. It was too easy to just throw away money "for the craic" when drunk/bored/feeling lucky.
When it get's dangerous is when all your analysis/study of bets go out the window and you say f**k it and end up chasing lost money by putting on more.
This type of thing can only end one way.

The bit that get's me is that the bookies NEVER EVER give you your overall online account total and how much you are down/up since you created the account. As a result you have to keep track of it yourself, and we all know why that is...

It is much harder to over gamble if you have to physically hand over hard cash. I can see why online accounts are leathal for problem gamblers.

The one thing I will say about Paddy Power they do have a "take a break" and close account options on thier accounts.
I dd notice another article in the OP's original link that did make me laugh regarding Roy Keane
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/roy-keane-sues-paddy-power-for-using-him-in-braveheart-style-billboard-adverts-10379856.html

But in light of the problem gambler article it did make me feel a bit uncomfortable.

Where I worked customers could set up deposit limits. So maximum of x amount at a time or x amount a week. If a customer wanted to change this it would take 24 hours to come in to effect. That would stop the drunken gambling spree from happening but the customer would have to had set up the limits in the first place. I haven't placed an online bet in a long time so don't know if this is still an option or not. Maybe they should make it so that every account has to set these limits?

Specialun · 01-03-2016 07:55PM

Ive bet for 15 years, luckily im a winning punter and one that keeps records..not exactly millions but it's better than losing.

To fully understand the industry you would need to be a punter. Bookies these days have very little interest in taking bets on horses or sports. Most bookies are glorified casino's with fobt machines in all corners. Winning punters are shut down asap. If your a losing punter then they will take all bets, give you days out on course or even in some cases give you an account manager and call you a valued customers. On course bookies will offer odds considerably less than the other exchanges or online..often now they will even manipulate the sp to suit the big companies..its beyond rotten and it needs a huge overhaul and proper regulation....

XR3i · 01-03-2016 08:07PM

i'll bet ya 50 quid i don't have a gambling problem

diomed · 01-03-2016 08:24PM

The bookmakers take a percentage of every market.
A better competes with other betters for the rest of the money.

In horse racing the margin is fixed by the odds returned from the bookmakers at the racecourse.
This margin can be from about 9% up to 70%+, and you will get fools who will take these poor odds at "festivals" like Cheltenham and Galway.
And as said above off-course bookmakers (the big shops and online chains) will manipulate the starting prices to their advantage (and their customers disadvantage).
More sensible gamblers use betting exchanges.

I don't want to turn this into a training course for betters but many betters -

do not specialize in a sport or niche
do not analyse every contestant and every factor
do use commonly available information, and don't generate their own information
do not work harder than other betters
do not bet at best prices
do not reject a bet as unattractively priced
do bet on major televised events that are heavily analysed (and no easy money)
do not bet at high odds (crazy as high odds pay more!)

Many of them want action. They don't want to win. They want to boast.

Valetta · 01-03-2016 08:37PM

diomed wrote: »

The bookmakers take a percentage of every market.
A better competes with other betters for the rest of the money.

In horse racing the margin is fixed by the odds returned from the bookmakers at the racecourse.
This margin can be from about 9% up to 70%+, and you will get fools who will take these poor odds at "festivals" like Cheltenham and Galway.
And as said above off-course bookmakers (the big shops and online chains) will manipulate the starting prices to their advantage (and their customers disadvantage).
More sensible gamblers use betting exchanges.

I don't want to turn this into a training course for betters but many betters -
do not specialize in a sport or niche

do not analyse every contestant and every factor

do use commonly available information, and don't generate their own information

do not work harder than other betters

do not bet at best prices

do not reject a bet as unattractively priced

do bet on major televised events that are heavily analysed (and no easy money)

do not bet at high odds (crazy as high odds pay more!)

Many of them want action. They don't want to win. They want to boast.

Those are the "fun" betters, who the bookies love.

All the fancy ads aren't aimed at the serious punters- they don't need any enticement to lose money.

kfallon · 01-03-2016 08:44PM

Specialun wrote: »

Ive bet for 15 years, luckily im a winning punter and one that keeps records..not exactly millions but it's better than losing.

To fully understand the industry you would need to be a punter. Bookies these days have very little interest in taking bets on horses or sports. Most bookies are glorified casino's with fobt machines in all corners. Winning punters are shut down asap. If your a losing punter then they will take all bets, give you days out on course or even in some cases give you an account manager and call you a valued customers. On course bookies will offer odds considerably less than the other exchanges or online..often now they will even manipulate the sp to suit the big companies..its beyond rotten and it needs a huge overhaul and proper regulation....

Nail on the head!
Bookies want punters betting on 'chance' bets, fobts, rapido, Virtual Racing, 49's etc, there's no skill or inside info for that!

The bookies don't want people betting on horse racing as some punters may know more than the bookmaker themself leaving them open to being 'stung'. Try going into a bookies tomorrow and having a ton e/w on a 20/1 shot, you won't get on at that price, they'll prob give you a 5er or 10er win at 20/1 and the rest at SP where they will ensure the SP is a lot lower!

And don't get me started on the PR bullshít they spout about so-called gambles so they can cut prices! If anyone wants to see a 'bookmakers market' check out the SP's of the Aintree Grand National, it's disgraceful!

gambler321 · 01-03-2016 09:22PM

Hello Folks,

I am posting from the UK.

I am also a compulsive gambler.

I have read this thread, and unfortunately, posters are really, really, really, misunderstanding.

In Ireland, you would not really understand what is happening in the UK with regard to our high street gambling market and " culture " of FOBTs and what they have done to our inner city high streets. ( PP are crunts and one of the worst offenders, more below ) unless you have actually visited the sh1tt1est parts of the UK and seen for yourself, you cannot actually believe what is going on here.

The gambler was using FOBTs or Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. These are not legal in Ireland. Your government refused to legalise them.

These are machines which offer video casino games. They offer a range of video games, such as roulette ( by far the most popular ), poker, blackjack, bagatelle, cockroach racing, instant lotto, instant bingo, all sorts of things.

The Law is as follows.

In the UK, each shop is allowed 4 of these machines.

A single " game " ( a video representation of a random number on a computer server somewhere in the Caribbean, represented as a game of roulette, cards etcetera ) allows a maximum stake of £100, and a maximum "win" of £500 including the returned stake. Therefore, the machine allows punters to place bets up until the point where it calculates the maximum payout would be £500. For example, a punter could place £100 on red or black in roulette, but they will be limited to £14 on a single number, however, addicts will cover numerous numbers. Addicts will cover the entire roulette table in a frenetic random jabbing of the screen, until they have staked the maximum of £100.

Each game lasts 20 seconds, meaning you can have 3 games a minute.

Therefore, it is possible to stake 3 x £100 per minute, so £ 300 per minute. And lose £ 300 per minute.

Once you have selected your selections, the next game offers a " repeat " so no need to select again, the numbers, cards, cockroach etcetera is automatically selected.

Horse racing takes minutes. And punters are limited. Bookies will only take maximum bets on sporting events.

The machines take 20 seconds per " game " and there are no limits.

Somebody can walk in off the street and within a minute lose £300, and their freaking mind and self control. In a few minutes they can lose a months wages. I saw someone lose nearly £ 2000 once in under an hour. I counted how many times he topped up the machine at £200 a time.

The machines can be fed notes, you can top them up with your debit card at the counter at £200 per time.

As each shop is only allowed 4 machines, Paddy Power and the rest have a simple solution. Open more shops.

If you look at the following postcode on Google Streetview - you will see that Paddy Power have solved the problem of only being allowed 4 machines per shop, by opening another shop directly opposite each other.

107 High Road,Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DE

74 High Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DL

There are a bus in the way, but if you look carefully, PP the crunts you can see 2 shops DIRECTLY OPPOSITE EACH OTHER. So somebody comes in and all 4 machines are being used ? No problem, just cross the road.

On some " High Streets " they will have as many as 5 shops. Multiply that by 5 major chains BetFred, Corals, William Hill, Ladbrokes, plus others like Jennings,

Some shops open at 7 or 8 AM in the morning, and close as late as 10, 11 or Midnight. I know of one that closes at 2 AM. Folk walk in at 8 AM on the way to work on Monday 1st June to get a football coupon, get sucked in on the machines, and before 9AM they have lost an entire months wages.

Paddy Power guilty of encouraging problem gambler to bet more

Comments