Gambling Addiction - Need Help, A Chat - Read This!

[davieG]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61932574

 

More than 20,000 people have signed an online petition calling for Everton to drop their new gambling sponsor.

The club announced the "record" deal with online casino stake.com two weeks ago, meaning logos will appear on men's and women's team shirts next season.

But there has been criticism from fans, with campaigners calling the move "saddening".

Everton have previously said betting sponsors are "not ideal" but needed to consider commercial decisions.

Many fans have accepted the club needed to take a different path after posting £372m in losses over the last three seasons, and it is understood there are no plans to ditch the new partnership.

But the recorded level of opposition to a sponsor is believed to be unprecedented in English football.

Norwich also ditched a gambling sponsor last season after fans protested about sexualised marketing material, while Preston North End did not renew their betting partnership after they said they took fans view into consideration.

Everton season ticket holder Ben Melvin, who has "suffered with gambling addiction for many years", said he set up the petition because he wanted to send a message to the club about what he believes are "harmful products".

Melvin, who has written to Everton, said: "The partnership does not sit right with the club's motto, the standards the club sets off the pitch and the fantastic work done by the club's Everton In The Community in tackling mental health issues.

"I didn't anticipate the petition to get to the level it has, and I realise Everton may not change their decision, but I want them to know how many people have signed it and understand how some fans feel."

A recent YouGov survey reported 1.4 million people in Britain were being harmed by gambling with a further 1.5 million at risk.

But the Premier League, the English Football League and Betting and Gaming Council all say there is no evidence to show a causal link between gambling sponsorship and problem gambling.

The government is set to decide on whether to change gambling laws, including a ban of sponsorship in football, next month.

[Wymsey]

What's happened to the situation on 'Luke's Law', @Lukeslaw?

[Lukeslaw]

The whitepaper is due out next week and we are expecting it to have very little changes tbh. Free bets will be banned to some degree but only those who are showing huge loses. I have already seen bookies giving 'cash back' so they will always work their way round it. Just wish the government weren't so useless 😕 

[davieG]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62177616

 

Government says video game loot boxes will not be regulated

 

The UK government has decided video game loot boxes will not be regulated under betting laws, despite it finding a link between them and gambling harms.

In a long-awaited call for evidence, it instead told the video game industry to take action to protect young people.

It says it will step in if firms do not act, and also wants loot box purchases to be restricted to adults, unless approved by a parent or guardian.

One academic said he was "dismayed" by the government's approach.

Loot boxes are an in-game feature involving a sealed mystery "box" - sometimes earned through playing a game and sometimes paid for with real money - which can be opened to reveal virtual items, such as weapons or costumes.

They have come under fire in recent years, with consumer groups in 18 European countries backing a report calling them "exploitative" in May.

 

Gambling Act unchanged
The government was considering whether loot boxes should form part of its yet-to-be released review of the Gambling Act 2005 - but it has decided against this.

Video game publishers have been told they must bring in "sufficient measures" to govern player safety, such as protecting vulnerable adults and fully disclosing the odds of getting certain items from loot boxes.

"While many loot boxes share some similarities with traditional gambling products, we view the ability to legitimately cash out rewards as an important distinction," it said in the report.

"In particular, the prize does not normally have real world monetary value outside of the game, and its primary utility is to enhance the in-game experience.

"The Gambling Commission has shown that it can and will take action where the trading of items obtained from loot boxes does amount to unlicensed gambling, and it will continue to take robust enforcement action where needed."

The government plans to launch a video games research framework later this year, which it hopes will work with academics and people from the industry to improve the available data. It said there were "limitations in the evidence base regarding loot boxes".

 

'Insulting' Kinder Surprise comparison
However, some say the government has not gone far enough in its response.

James Close, from the University of Plymouth, who has published research on the link between gaming loot boxes and problem gambling, said he was "dismayed" by the report.

"I take issue with some of the citation of the evidence base," he said. "The report released yesterday did show strong links with problem gambling.

"They cited those things, but then they equally said there's no evidence of causation here. They might not be able to support causation, but if people at serious risk of harm are engaging heavily in this form of monetisation, then it doesn't matter whether loot boxes cause problem gambling."

 

Dr Close also raised questions about whether the government was right to say prizes did not have real-world monetary value outside the games, as some secondary markets online allow players to easily sell the items acquired in-game.

His research, published in 2021, found loot boxes "are structurally and psychologically akin to gambling".

But games publisher EA previously defended them, comparing loot boxes to children's toys Hatchimals or Kinder Surprise.

Adrian Hon, chief executive of game developer Six to Start and author of forthcoming book You've Been Played, called this comparison "obviously ridiculous".

"It would be like there's a Kinder Surprise shop in your bedroom and you can buy as many as you want," he said.

In order for the two to be comparable, he added: "When you open them up there's fireworks going off everywhere.

"And you can get this amazing toy that you can use in the game that you play with your friends. That's not a Kinder Surprise - the comparison is insulting, really."

[Collymore]

BBC News - Gambling disorder: 'It took me to save Peter Shilton'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-62186923

[Vacamion]

 

 

 

 

[Wymsey]

Just saw a new advert with a background saying 'seriously 60 free spins'..

 

It seems like the betting industry is still very much unregulated.

[Collymore]

14 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

 

 

 

This is so good to see. Tranmere are awesome.

[Trueblue96]

I once gambled my car for an arm wrestle during my road trip through Nebraska.

 

I won and ended up with 2 cars.

[TJB-fox]

Josh Windass acting the cvnt on twitter, saying that he doesn’t feel empathy with Paul Merson because gambling isn’t an illness it’s a choice. 
 

Would have thought he’d have understood addiction given his old man’s past circumstances, disappointing to see a high (ish) profile footballer take this stance publicly. 

Edited 19 September 2022 by TJB-fox

[OwnGoal]

On 19/09/2022 at 19:53, TJB-fox said:

Josh Windass acting the cvnt on twitter, saying that he doesn’t feel empathy with Paul Merson because gambling isn’t an illness it’s a choice. 
 

Would have thought he’d have understood addiction given his old man’s past circumstances, disappointing to see a high (ish) profile footballer take this stance publicly. 

I’m not sure Josh is acting like a ****. He is merely giving an opinion that I believe the silent majority would agree with. 

[purpleronnie]

8 minutes ago, OwnGoal said:

I’m not sure Josh is acting like a ****. He is merely giving an opinion that I believe the silent majority would agree with. 

You mean people who are ignorant of the illness?

[OwnGoal]

58 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

You mean people who are ignorant of the illness?

The majority. Call them what you like.  

[Ric Flair]

A horrid but not sadly not surprising read, all too common. Good to see a paper actually willing to quote how such a small percentage of problem gamblers account for the majority of revenue these betting companies make. 

 

There is absolutely no hiding place on that, action has to be taken.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/20/gambling-addiction-tennis-bet365-online-betting-hannah-jane-parkinson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Wymsey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63697880

 

@Lukeslaw

[filbertway]

Targeting offers seems akin to banning happy hour to me. It doesn't address the problem and takes away from the vast vast majority that are in control.

 

I think you should be limited to being able to open an online account with one bookmaker. You then supply wage/slips or bank statements of your monthly income and that informs what you max deposit limit will be.

 

If you bring home 1.8k after tax then you can deposit a max of £90 (5%) over the month 

 

Obviously there can be exceptions for wealthy people but they can be dealt with on a one by one basis. 

[OwnGoal]

54 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Targeting offers seems akin to banning happy hour to me. It doesn't address the problem and takes away from the vast vast majority that are in control.

 

I think you should be limited to being able to open an online account with one bookmaker. You then supply wage/slips or bank statements of your monthly income and that informs what you max deposit limit will be.

 

If you bring home 1.8k after tax then you can deposit a max of £90 (5%) over the month 

 

Obviously there can be exceptions for wealthy people but they can be dealt with on a one by one basis. 

So you want to tell me how much I can spend. You can’t even have a top night out for £90. That’s a ludicrously low amount.  People waste money all sorts of things yet you want to stop people gambling. What other form of expenditure do you want me to show my wage slips and bank statements in order to participate. Would you make me present them at a top notch restaurant before they allow me to be seated?  How about my holiday next year ? People should be able to spend their own money as they like. Bookmakers rightly stopped credit card deposits but limiting people from spending their own money is a step too far. 

[filbertway]

38 minutes ago, OwnGoal said:

So you want to tell me how much I can spend. You can’t even have a top night out for £90. That’s a ludicrously low amount.  People waste money all sorts of things yet you want to stop people gambling. What other form of expenditure do you want me to show my wage slips and bank statements in order to participate. Would you make me present them at a top notch restaurant before they allow me to be seated?  How about my holiday next year ? People should be able to spend their own money as they like. Bookmakers rightly stopped credit card deposits but limiting people from spending their own money is a step too far. 

Well its not a final draft that I'm taking to the houses of Parliament

 

Basically I dont think you should be a position where you're given the opportunity to spend that months shopping money, rent or bills. 

 

Ideally not all your disposable income as well otherwise it becomes a very sad and lonely life

[OwnGoal]

2 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Well its not a final draft that I'm taking to the houses of Parliament

 

Basically I dont think you should be a position where you're given the opportunity to spend that months shopping money, rent or bills. 

 

Ideally not all your disposable income as well otherwise it becomes a very sad and lonely life

So you think a draconian spending limit on people wanting to gamble is the way forward. What about smokers. What do they spend a month. Have you got a suggestion for them and also big drinkers.  People following the City away.  That can be expensive.  The list can go on.  All these people can potentially ruin their lives financially so are we going to try and save them from themselves? People need to be responsible for their own choices. There is help out there for people who struggle. Telling me I can lose £90 a month or 5% of what I earn isn’t an answer. 

[lcfc old boy]

are our shirt sponsors a gambling company, you risk money to gain money with fbs taking a percentage just like betfair do, and i should imagine a lot of people have hit hard times through trading , 

[Lako42]

1 hour ago, lcfc old boy said:

are our shirt sponsors a gambling company, you risk money to gain money with fbs taking a percentage just like betfair do, and i should imagine a lot of people have hit hard times through trading , 

trading is gambling for most people 

[OwnGoal]

Business is a gamble. How many people have gone broke through business ventures?  My mate borrowed fortunes to get his business up and running and risked everything he had.  This demonisation of gambling that is ongoing at the moment conveniently forgets that life itself is often a gamble. A few wrong decisions can ruin your life in many other fields. Help is available for people who need it. Banning all sponsorship that is gambling related and saying to someone we know better than you and you therefore have £3 a day to bet with, just in case you get the red mist and lose the lot, is not what a free country needs. 

[lcfc old boy]

4 hours ago, Lako42 said:

trading is gambling for most people 

thats what im saying , but is anybody on here who are condemning gambling and praising everton and bolton for their stance , asking for a petition to get rid of fbs 

[Ric Flair]

On 24/11/2022 at 12:14, OwnGoal said:

Business is a gamble. How many people have gone broke through business ventures?  My mate borrowed fortunes to get his business up and running and risked everything he had.  This demonisation of gambling that is ongoing at the moment conveniently forgets that life itself is often a gamble. A few wrong decisions can ruin your life in many other fields. Help is available for people who need it. Banning all sponsorship that is gambling related and saying to someone we know better than you and you therefore have £3 a day to bet with, just in case you get the red mist and lose the lot, is not what a free country needs. 

The problem is, these gambling companies have very little ethics they adhere to and the gambling commission and the government are an absolute disgrace when it comes to regulating them.

 

When less than 5% of the total demographic of gamblers that are identified as " problem gamblers " or compulsive gamblers account for over 70% of gambling firms revenues then you simply cannot say that people should be free to do what they want in this regard with no consequence.

 

You are always going to get addicted people to various things and it's a balancing act on ensuring the overwhelming majority that can control themselves aren't hugely effected in their freedom and choice of those that can't (like me). But it's not right gambling firms can pray on that 5% and why on earth would they be serious about losing out on 70% of their revenues? This isn't about the majority, there should be a pathway for recreational gambling for those and sensible regulated betting, even with offers to reward such gamblers if needs be.

 

However, many many gambling firms in the past have honed in on those who are losing vast amounts of money with them and are tasked with making sure they keep gambling, no matter what. Christ, many firms have been fined for it and yet nothing really changes. When you also find out a lot of betting firms own the algorithms that are targeting children as well with these online platforms of games that mimick casino games and it's a scary future without something being done about it.

 

I repeat, this can be better regulated and the recreational gambler shouldn't be effected. I suppose the question is betting firms having a huge slash of that 70% they generate from compulsive gamblers like me, is going to have repercussions (where is the owner of BET365 going to find the profits to pay herself over £350m in dividends next year), perhaps they won't be quite as generous to the masses. Is that wrong? Should gambling companies be OK to ring me up after I've lost £11k in less than 15 minutes and give me free spins and bets to the tune of £1,100 that had huge wager requirements, knowing I'd likely lose it and a lot lot more of my own? And on it goes on their mission to see just how far you will go and with no consequence.

 

If you think the answer to that is yes,  tough shit, then I despair.

 

 

[OwnGoal]

Rick.  Let me make it clear.  I hate the firms. I’m lucky in that my experiences of them showing how they are unfit to hold a licence with their antics is from a totally different side of the fence to you.  I’ve made my living from betting now for nearly twenty years. There’s no trick I’ve not had played on me by the so called big gambling companies. They are vile. That I agree on.  
 

Although I am now successful that wasn’t always the case. For many years I was always losing the lot. Maxing out on credit cards and having overdraft limits being exceeded and owing friends money etc. I was lucky to a large extent that my bad years were pre internet, where come a certain time in the day that was it. 
 

The problem with the white paper on gambling is the people involved know nothing about gambling. Stories like yours will dominate their thinking.  However, they need to differentiate between all the different types of gambling. You mention spins. The crack cocaine of gambling. Fixed odds betting terminals and online casinos, where literally someone can be having numerous bets per minute and mathematically they stand no chance of winning long term. These outlets need to be treated differently to sports betting.  People losing money on horses for instance still get a massive amount of pleasure from their pastime. They live for the sport. 
 

Affordability, the new key word it seems, needs to be realistic.  People should still be able to lose decent money but not tens of thousands of pounds in one night unchecked. Talking about limits of £100 a month is ridiculous. It’s a free country. I know lads who save up all year for a smash at Cheltenham. They bet in tenners max all year. Then go to the festival and are having hundreds on. Win or lose they love the week. 
 

I agree something needs to be done. Firms restricting winners to literally pence bets whilst giving the losers more and more free offers. Sickening. In a world where discrimination is seen as an heinous crime the betting firms are allowed to discriminate all the time. They are scum. I know that, but we also need to be careful not to go to far in trying to solve a problem I don’t think you’ll ever truly solve.