blonde poker forum

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-cut-fixed-odds-betting-terminals-maximum-stake-from-100-to-2

https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/bookies-worst-fears-realised-as-government-cuts-fobt-stakes-to-2/331402

About time, it's been ridiculous how "bookmakers" have basically been casino arcades for a long time now.  These things have caused too much harm in society.

William Hill share price has been lurching around recently due to rumours about this.  It will be some time before it is implemented according to the gov.uk link.

What good news, they should hever have been allowed on the high street.

Guess it isn't going to be armageddon for the bookies after all?   Hills share price down 3% so far this morning.   

GVC holdings only down 2 or 3% too.

There are restrictions proposed on online gaming as well.  Seems to me that might affect poker.  

eg



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/707815/Government_response_to_the_consultation_on_proposals_for_changes_to_gaming_machines_and_social_responsibility_measures.pdf

I wonder if Pstars are regretting the Sky purchase last week.

That reads to me like it will be guidance on when source of funds checks must be carried out.  IE crap deposit limits until you do it and prove you can afford it.

At the moment I have read some source of funds checks are being sent on withdrawal requests, which is completely wrong if they are supposed to be checking the person can afford what they are depositing and are not using dodgy money.

Regarding the share price I also expected a larger drop, but reading between the lines it is going to be a year or two before this limit is actually enforced.

Did the market just know this was imminent?

Incred scenes anyway.

Nicked from Twitter: "Any betting shop that has to close because of this should not have opened in the first place".

Think my Sky limits aren't going to need an affordability check anytime soon.

Grandma might struggle though she doesn't bet massively either.  

Philip Davies and Esther McVey can fk right off this morning.   Will have to start cooking their own dinners, though suggest Mr. Davies will find other sources of hospitality given his low thresholds.

They discuss the issue of player ID elsewhere (and also delaying withdrawals in another section)


The general tone of the proposals seems to be around risky activity - I'm not sure what they will make of a winning poker player who spends 60 hours a week online.  You might remember some threads about poker players getting their accounts shut down at banks just because of their risk profile.

I just looked at my betfair exchange turnover for the last three months - losses of £27129, wins of £29487.*  My income is a pension of £1000 a month....  Plenty of poker players will have huge losing runs and no income because they are staked.  I hate to think what arbhoy's exchange turnover is.  

Hopefully it won't be an issue as peer to peer is small in comparison to other gambling, but if the companies are being forced to get rid of whales they might want to get rid of sharks as well.



* ;bigadz;
  

Hills have stated 900 of their roughly 2000 shop estate will be unprofitable as a result. 

Outside of the direct impact on the industry i think it says a lot about the bigger political picture that the tories have done this.

Hills shares now in full on rally mode

Guess people will still lose the same, just takes a bit more time

Less chance of hitting a big "walk away" win as well.

Slot players also unaffected

No way people still lose the same!

Just a complete waste of time playing them now

I for one would like to say that I feel my human rights have been breached by forcing me into a casino if I want a Blackjack fix mid drinking session  :'(

If you've got time or inclination to play blackjack when you're out on the piss, then your drinking exploits need work, Mr Hopkin ;D

I've had to send bank statements to some of the casinos I use for slots, to prove my salary.

is online slots/casino gaming next for attention, where for example i could win or lose a lot of money on a single roulette spin right now, next?

or is the fact that much of it is domiciled offshore a protection for the operators?

It's already getting attention, after Hills got whacked for a lump (Was it £7m?)

No idea about the intricacies, but I know they're being forced to be more vigilant.

I don't get too bent up about the KYC, but did have nightmares with one casino, who wanted notarised documents, before they'd pay me out a slot win :D

I have never understood the obsessions of replacing the lost tax revenue from fobts.  The money not blown in these machines will be spent elsewhere in the economy and be taxed at a much higher rate via VAT, other duties and income tax/NI on more labour intensive products.  I can't have it that just banning FOBT's won't increase the tax take naturally.

Dan Weston
‏ @Tennisratings
7h7 hours ago

Bookmakers have been restricted - the ultimate irony?

Fair play to ITV racing for tackling the issue head on today in a balanced manner across all their presenters. 

Plenty of people play for >£2 a spin

I have never ever played slots on a FOBT.  How can they play for more than £2 a spin when the max spin is £2 and the max prize is £500 same as amusement arcades limits?  Why would you play for much more than £2 a spin when the top prize is only a monkey?  Casino slots have £5 max and £20000 jackpot i think.  Not 100% certain on this but interested to know how you can do it.

I've never checked all the online slots, but the highest I've seen is £90 a spin on some of the 243 line games.

Sure but they are not subject to uk high street legal rules.  Think they are called B1/B2/B3 limit machines each has a different level.

I probably should know that, but I only run the numbers to check the equity :D

Won't they need a UKGC license, and isn't it possible that they could be limited further in the near future?  Guess people can always play on unregulated sites? 

Every time my coin jar gets full i take great pleasure in dumping the lot into a FOBT in a number of local betting shops who don't take my bets and i really hate the shop manager before cashing the ticket out without playing at all.  Why do people pay 10% of their coins value for those change counting machines at supermarkets when you can really piss off a betting shop manager you hate and force him to leave his role late having to count bundles of change at the end of his shift?

At least now the limit is £2 i will be able to justify playing in 5p and 10p coins rather than notes should i ever get asked why i am doing what i am doing.  Long live the FOBT's.  Definitely providing a social service to the community.

Online casinos/gambling operators that serve the UK have been legally domiciled here since the amendment to the 2005 gambling act (came into force December 2014).

This allows for consumer protection and law under UK legislation, it also allows a 15% tax rate to be levied on operators.  There is now no doubt where everything is happening "legally" when online gambling from the UK.  Previous to 2014 UK law was powerless to do much against criminal activity in online gambling from operators or players as it was deemed to be happening wherever the site was licenced.

The only operators that don't abide by these new rules are tiny rogue outfits the general public almost never will end up using.

I agree with the general point that people who used to play roulette for decent stakes on FOBT's will simply end up going online or find another avenue.  However the main problem to me with FOBT's was that when Corals (for example) have 84% of their entire turnover going through these machines it makes a "bookmaker" licence a bit of a fraud imo.  It's wrong to be able to front a casino on the highstreet under the guise of being a "bookmaker".

People should still be able to play roulette if they want to, but at an appropriately licenced casino, online or b&m.

Will be nice to see the shop opening times revert to 10am to 10 minutes after the last afternoon race.  Most will sack off evening opening i would imagine as well as no one goes in at night other than to play roulette.  The days of them opening at 8am in the morning and closing at 10pm Sunday night must surely be over?

Sorry, my mistake i think. Was thinking casino/online slots so you're prob right about how they're set up in the shops. As you were.

I think you are correct in that there are currently ways you can put a bet of larger than £2 through an FOBT slot with one press - but making it £2 per spin max with £500 top prize really keeps the slot games on them just as lethal as they are now for the desperate.

Quality

I am getting confused, how can £2 a spin be just as lethal as £100 a spin?    It is likely to take you an hour minimum to go through £100 rather than 30 seconds?   Would have to put in some serious grind to lose a weeks wages under the new rules.   If you go on tilt for five minutes, you are likely doing a tenner rather than a monkey?   If Hills and Ladbrokes do close a load of shops, there is going to be less opportunity to develop a serious gambling problem too? 

The slots have low 90% pay outs compared to 97.3% for roulette.  Therefore you are doing your cash much quicker. I would imagine the average slot player has a spin every 5? seconds compared to a roulette player who even allowing for the absolute minimum of 20 seconds realistically is taking close to a minute to place their bets every time unless just auto repeat every spin.

If they have 12 spins for every 1 spin on roulette at four times faster losing rate that's effectively 48 spins EV wise at £2 a spin with the four times faster losing rate for every one spin on roulette where they can stake £100 max.   Lot of slots players just have 'auto spin' on to play at the fastest speed possible.  Even if you wanted to repeat your bet on roulette you still have to click the repeat bet button and hit bet every time.

I would imagine the average punter irons his money out at a similar rate of knots between both products.  I have seen people iron out £100 in slots very quickly.  I still think £100 roulette punters will lose their cash quicker but very few bet £100 a spin.  The £20 roulette punter will probably lose his cash long term slower than a £2 slots player.

Do your cash faster than roulette? Didn’t know that was possible  ;surrender;  ;grr; :D

More exposure to the house edge as money is recycled more and the player has far less chance of hitting a win that would cause them to walk away.  On the £50 bets which get you several enhanced spins or whatever (as Jamier-Host points out these are possible via fortune spin type things at the moment) they stand much more chance of busting very quickly or winning an amount that would end the session.  The total amount wagered at a negative expectation is less.  £2 spins at 90% are lethal as an initial £100 stake gets recycled many times swiftly and gives the player much less chance of hitting a win that will cause them to end the session but much more exposure to the house edge.  If a player is not a multi billionaire and only has access to x amount of money they stand a far greater chance of losing it all playing £2 a go and recycling than doing only a few large bets.  Of course if they will never stop during the session no matter what they win its irrelevant and both options will end them.  £2 spins play out a lot quicker than you might imagine and the house edge soon takes it's toll.  Either way the current revenue from the slots portion of FOBT's is not going to be materially affected by a £2 max stake.

Haha. So good at finding an edge. Sounds great fun. I'd love to see you do this..do you try and catch their eye while yr filling the machine up with a smug look.  I know I would :)

Currently you can play "super spins" on slots in a bookies. Have 5 spins for £20, £30 or £50 quid. Still £500 quid jacky. They were brought in a few years ago. Considering they're under the microscope about responsible gambling in general, it was a crazy decision. Hard to justify it as offering "recreational gambling" as they like to term it when they knock you back OTC, it didn't get mentioned much in the debate but if I was one of the people trying to get it knocked down to £2 a spin it would have been my first port of call.

"You claim to be interested in responsible gambling, why have you just increased the max stake on slots by x25?"

The post I replied to says FOBTs slots, which will have to follow the new rules?   So they have the same minimum spin time, won't they?   

This argument about very few punters betting £100 a time is a bit tiresome. It may be a small proportion of all FOBTs punters, but surely a much higher proportion of £100 a spin FOBT punters are going to have gambling problems than in the general FOBT punter population.   

Today's "Times" suggests that the Government only gave the green light to these reforms on the basis that they would not be introduced until some time in 2020, so 2 years down the line, maybe more.

Plenty of time for further procrastination then.

The GBGB have released a statement (below) on the decision.

“The Greyhound Board of Great Britain notes the announcement by the government that the maximum stake on FOBTs will be reduced to £2 and welcomes the government’s commitment to address the issue of problem gambling.

The GBGB is concerned, however, that the stakes reduction will cause further migration away from the high street to online and offshore platforms that are currently outside of the scope of the voluntary levy paid on retail greyhound turnover to the British Greyhound Racing Fund, which is vital for the Board to meet its welfare and integrity commitments.

Should the predicted widespread closure of betting shops eventuate, there could be three unwelcome consequences for the sport. Firstly, there is likely to be a reduction in retail greyhound betting turnover, which would reduce the amount collected through the voluntary levy. Secondly, it is possible that there will be an adverse impact on the value of media rights received by tracks from retail operators. Finally, there may be an increase in online betting, which is largely unregulated and is currently outside of the scope of the voluntary levy.

The GBGB has been in negotiations with bookmakers for a considerable amount of time about extending the voluntary levy to include online and offshore greyhound betting turnover. This issue now needs to be urgently resolved or concluded so that GBGB can fulfil its welfare obligations as outlined in its Greyhound Commitment.”

Such a cop out that is. No wonder the shares didn't move much, although I suppose the US news earlier in the week helped balance things.

I worked in bookies before and during the intro of the FOBTs and remember being surprised they were allowed. This was when casino games could only be found in an actual casino or online. I even had to wait 24hrs after registering for a casino in Birmingham before I could actually go in and play!

It basically turned the shops into mini casinos and changed the atmosphere. There was more focus huddled round the machines than on the screens showing the racing, and it just used to twist people up. Sure, people got pissed off sometimes when they did their cash on the horses/dogs, but never to the extremes that people regularly did from shovelling money into the roulette. So much easier to chase your dough compared to shamefully looking the cashier in the eye as you handed over a wedge for some nag in the next at Sandown.

Despite the industry background, I can't feel sorry for the (chain) bookmakers here. The betting shop as a species has been on a path to extinction for years, but they've managed to keep it alive and even reproducing with a bit of FOBT/fruity gene splicing. Without that, mobile sports betting would have shrunk the population of shops years ago. The bigger companies all have digital operations that drive the bulk of their revenues anyway, so the real losers will be the independents who finally go the way of video shops and succumb to our changing behaviours.

Didn't realise the sport didn't get the same levy revenue from online vs offline. That is a shame and should be rectified.

The 20 second limit isn't changing as far as i am aware just the stake.  The time limits are as they were.  Slots were never subject to this 20 second time limits because effectively the slot element of the FOBT is just the same as any £500 jackpot machine in a standard high st amusement arcade which is not subject to the 20 second FOBT time limit. 

Yep this review as far as I have read contains the following

£2 Stake cap FOBTs
Stronger Age Verification Procedures
Affordability Checks
Responsible Gambling message must now appear for the duration of TV adverts + another responsible gambling tv campaign to come
More research into the harm gambling can cause
Age of playing the National Lottery to rise from 16 to 18.

Regarding what the speed of play actually is, here's a video of a FOBT slot at £2 a go from April.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy8_vJ7DoN8

There you go, that'll solve everything.

My sources tell me they are planning to replace them with I-Pads in store where you can access your online account and play on the casino, giving players the chance to deposit and withdraw in cash from the cashier.

Really good point this, a bit like low stakes online poker versus live - easy to be out of control when no physical presence around to keep you in check.

Happy they take this off the high street in some ways but seems like's a diminishing return in addressing problem gambling as less and less people will rock up to a shop as time goes by anyway - unless they get a particular buzz from the environment and physically attacking machines.

I'd be pretty happy if they banned all online casino gambling, bingo,game of chance stuff which would do a lot more to address the issue.

Matt Chapman doing a pretty good interview with Mark Pearson of Betfred here.

"Has anyone ever come up to you and said ohhhhh I had so much fun playing a fobt this afternoon???"  ;D

https://twitter.com/itvracing/status/997153979791429632

Betfair and Sky are the main two that I have seen a lot said about. Not sure about b365. Strange seeing as Paddy pays which I only found out the other day and thought it abit odd that betfair wouldn’t pay anything.

betfair don't pay anything because of a long running sponsorship dispute from years ago over the trainers championship where they felt they got the piss taken out of them.  They have refused to pay anything voluntarily online until all other firms are forced to do the same.

365 pay as much as anyone does voluntarily.  

Should clarify this is greyhound online business contributions to the voluntary levy only as far as i am aware.  Nothing to do with horses

Mark Pearson is the most classless/clueless yes man PR man ever to exist in this game and there have been some terrible ones in recent years.  'We have to go away and look at the numbers' lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzz no you don't. You have fucked off horse racing sponsorship wise because fred threw his toys out of the pram over the race courses going it alone with their own tote this summer.  

Your whole business model is built of FOBT's and loan sharking your own staff in the staff room adverts via fred's loan sharking business.  You have zero OTC business in your shops worthy of keeping your show on the road.   I can't wait until your vile firm closes its shop in my town.  You paid a fortune for it from an indepedent in the mid 2000's based on turnover and profit figures from bets you would never accept and within a year it was nothing more than a FOBT den and all the real punters your business 'bought' weren't there anymore.  You must have countless other shops you are doing your nuts in compared to purchase price in the glory days without FOBT income.  

If only you are a PLC we could really see how much this law change would affect your business via the share price.  I have seen one guy iron out £5k in one of your FOBT's in one visit and no member of staff even moved from behind the counter to provide 'when the fun stops stop' advice.

John 'i am rochdale' Hill from lolorals springs to mind among numerous others.  Guess where he was trained prior to lolorals?  His suit, like Pearson's, gives it away.  I remember when you had to listen to his shocking dog comm's back in the day on SIS before tv pics when he got given the graveyard shifts.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/john-hill-b11041104

Absolute disgrace the lot of them, targeting the poor and vulnerable.  Anyone involved with FOBTs should be ashamed of themselves frankly.

A date will be set for the £2 stake cut in the budget (apparently - source is The Mirror so make of that what you will)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/philip-hammond-faces-embarrassing-parliamentary-13413037?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/08/gambling-industry-philip-hammond-fixed-odds-betting-terminals

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/nov/14/what-reason-philip-hammond-delay-fobt-reform-lobbyist

Couple of very good factual articles on the FOBT change which has been brought forward to April.  The tories really have looked to be in the back pocket of the big firms oover this with their embarrassing change of date being brought forward only because of mp revolt.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/05/ladbrokes-staff-told-to-sign-gamblers-to-online-accounts-to-avoid-redundancy

Incredible by lolbrokes if this is true.  Can they sink any further as a firm on their slow decent into bustoville? 

There isn't a violin in the world that's small enough for when this stake cut finally actually happens.

I have been keeping an eye on betting shops recently and i have hardly seen a betting shop with anyone in them for weeks. 

That's good, I haven't been taking notice but from what I read closures are starting to happen.

Hills share price has roughly much been cut in half since the initial announcement and pressure to bring the timing forward.  Yes, I realise there are other reasons that can be blamed for this (America blah blah blah).  The cold hard truth is however they made a lot of money from these machines and now they won't make as much and it will happen sooner than originally expected, imo that is the main driving factor.

I still believe FOBT will continue to be a solid earner for these companies (despite not quite like the heydey).  The machines should be limited to whatever is legal in pubs these days.

On another note does anyone know when this self-regulating advertising during live games ban is actually going to come into effect?  I've had enough of that dick from the inbetweeners.

Its a shame Lolbrokes are not still a stand alone company with their share price and market cap on full view for all to see.  God knows how far under £1bn the firm would be worth nowadays.  It is conveniently hidden in the new GVC holdings share price with all the other brands they own.  Given Hills have slumped to £1.5bn market cap and ppbf down to below £5bn (from nearly £8bn at the peak) lolbrokes must be nearly worthless now in the bigger picture of things.  Not sure how much ppbf slump is to do with FOBT's as only the PP arm has any exposure and it is relatively small compared to the shop heavy estates of the big 4 on the high st.

God knows what the value of Bald's empire has fallen to given they are a private firm and way more exposed to FOBT's than even the big three because their online business is so small.  Be interesting to see how many of his shops he closes as so many were only around from the start of the FOBT's and onwards.

Skybet and 365 literally have the game by the gonads.  Incredible to think it would end up like this 15 years ago but the FOBT's made every other rival they had so lax and reliant on the crack cocaine cash of gambling and taking their eye off the ball of the day job of doing what their business is licensed to do.  Bookmake not gaming.

Today's racing lockdown is just sending the shares into even bigger meltdown as Cheltenham is potentially under threat now.

GB Horse racing cancelled for the next week while they combat equine flu.

Wonder if the bookies see this as a good thing? A few racing punters might be tempted by the FOBTs? (Please note that there’s a slightly tongue in cheekiness to this comment).

In the long term, though, surely the bigger firms will simply migrate the slots & roulette punters to their online casinos where the limits don’t currently apply. In the long run this may prove to be a better business model, notwithstanding new legislation. Tidys up the high street too; room for another coffee shop.

How does the local drug dealer get £5k in readies into his online account in a shop and the firms get around the ML rules?

Absolutely not.

GVC I think escaped a bit as the amount they paid for Ladbrokes was conditional on the FOBT review result being favourable.

https://gvc-plc.com/statement-regarding-potential-acquisition-of-ladbrokes-coral-group-plc/

Ladbrokes used to be a good site back in the day (when I say back in the day I mean well over a decade ago).  Have been sewer rats for quite a while now sadly.

They didn't escape they would have preferred to have paid the max for lolbrokes and the fobt's still allowed in current state.  They have paid less because they have bought a firm with very little value without fobt's.  I personally think they didn't think they would get banned and they punted the valuation if they did.  What they have bought at the discounted price probably isn't worth what they paid. 

It will course still be possible, although the lack of full stake FOBT's takes away one avenue.  I have read of FOBT payout slips being used as some sort of evidence when drug dealers properties have been raided before.

Most of the industry appear to be using the new AML requirements (proof of source of wealth) as a way to delay/frustrate large withdrawals and to gather data on customers they don't like.  Some appear to be flat ignoring it.  They have a problem as these requirements are a massive turn off to genuine punters.

I agree mostly (which is why I said they escaped only "a bit").  They must be gutted and have definitely overpaid imo, but they did not have to shell out the full price.

Your bald friend has been much worse hit, sadly he has already made his fortune.

I have never understood why shops couldn't just have a bank of ipads for punters to use in shops to play their casinos.  That would be funny to see a 2020 betting shop with loads of sofas and people sitting there with an ipad playing poker and roulette and simply cashing out over the counter.  Not a horse race in sight.  Jeremy Kyle and loose women on instead to keep the clients entertained.

This is what all the firms want but FOBT's targeted people for who online gambling is a problem.  You need to have KYC docs, a bank account etc to gamble online.  FOBT's were targeting cash in hand poor and vulnerable people who are desperate.  You see the homeless trying to spin up their money playing FOBT.  That cant really happen so easily trying to make them play online.

And the millions of illegals working cash in hand with zero way of betting online over the past decade because of no documents/bank accounts etc.

 ;carlocitrone;

Have read the £2 stake limit is currently being trialed in Birmingham, in advance of the 1st April nationwide compliance date.  Apparently you can now get roulette with 5p chips.

I also hear that £20/£30/£40/£50 fortune spins are still present on the slots.  Except you must win them, by gambling £2 at a time in "premium" mode.  You will on average spend the face value of the spin to win one.  No idea if that is true or not as I only read about it on a forum, but if it is it does make a bit of a joke of the regulations.

Yeah it’s true. But I don’t think it’s as bad because it still takes time to make those spins and even then you’re spinning for a chance to win a fortune game which might pay fuck all. It’s hardly an appealing prospect and I can’t see it being popular. This concept, a pre spin gamble, has also been around a while - some pub fruit machines had it 10+ years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/25/william-hills-asks-for-rent-cuts-to-offset-loss-in-fixed-odds-income

Hills managed their over the counter business terribly for 20 years since the cash cows arrived now want the landlords to take the hit because they can't make their core business pay.  You couldn't make it up.  Get your prices right and lay a bet and then your pre 2000 business might return.  Remember you are called William Hill bookmakers not william hill casino.

Fking jokers

I have been pretty heavily restricted for a while, so didn't have a bet with hills for 6 months.   I thought they might let me have a bit more on.   Just to test the water, I bet 3 horses, no dirty each way, all were just £25 each way.  Two well and truly lost; the other was Frodon.   I took 7/1 fifth first 3, but could have got quarter first 3 elsewhere and 8/1 was available on the morning.   Pretty sure I could have done better on betfair too. Of course Frodon shortened, but was well exposed and no dark horse, and the 7/1 was still available for some time after my bet.   

I got a further restrictions letter straight after Cheltenham.  They should be massively embarassed about that.

I got one the week after Chelts, too.

After a recent trading review, we wish to advise you that your account has had all sports and gaming concessions* removed and stake restrictions may apply moving forward.

They were a bit slow with their a/r markets, and I got on Tiger @ 4/1 & Early Doors @ 16/1 when Tiger was much shorter for the X-C & Early was shorter in most h/cap markets.

That said, I had an absolute bunch of a/r bets with them and they got ironed out. Definitely somewhere I'll be more careful next year.

I wasn't even best pricing, just 3 bets which clearly weren't that great at the time.   I assumed they let me bet "so big" because max limits were much bigger for Cheltenham.   If I'd put a big bet on some massive ante post price on a future favourite in a novice event, or I'd took some of the 6 places in a 12 runner race, I'd get why they put restrictions on.  But it was £25 each way on a well known horse in a feature race with lousy each way terms.

I figure someone could have just fecked up and took restrictions off for Cheltenham (wish I'd known!), but I suspect they genuinely think that I had a great bet simply because it won.

Really odd. I remember Padraig banning me ages ago, and then they started letting me get on to win 5/600 on some races.
They let me have a score on Theatre Territory for the Topham, so all is not dead.

The big bookies are defo in some bother, imo. For years the strat has been not to employ proper traders and just stick someone in on a junior salary to sit there with a checklist of what they dont wanna see and ban anyone who touches the list, the guys who's job is it to primarily stop people who are making winning bets obviously will be quite nitty as they'll never get pulled in monday and asked, "why you ban this guy" but they'll defo get the "WTF how did you let this guy bet" chat, also when you add in the cost of processing money there's a lot of small losing punters the firms dont even want. It's probably been a prudent strategy over the years as top traders are expensive given they will always earn more punting themselves or working with the syndicates and that money could get pushed into the every present PR/Marketing war that rages between the big guns, hard to ever not make money running a huge bookie like this, and let the cash-cow of the retail element (FOBTS) pay all the bonuses.

Now the FOBT business is hit and the AML restrictions make it all the more difficult to actually attract the right punters, they probs need to re-asses the business model, this is me shooting from the hip but i seriously wonder if huge, now completely corporate businesses are even capable of the changes needed, might be they're actually just not good enough and maybe we'll see one of the big guns fade away at some point. Lads/Coral under the GVC umbrella could just get binned off if they can't turn the retail side round, betfred have the worst online software and no partnership, who knows, 10 years ago you'd have laughed anyone out of the room who said Billy Hills might go out of business. I'm not saying starting to take punters on properly is absolutely what they should be doing but I think they need to do something different.

I never been massively aggravated by bookies restricting people, just all part of the game, I wanna make bets, they don't wanna take my bets, like a sporting contest, they certainly aren't obligated to take my business just as a carpet fitter would be perfectly entitled to turn to me and say "Im not fitting your carpets because I don't like your face"

Shame about Hills, they're been the pick of a poor bunch in recent times. Guess it was only a matter of time though.

Things will get worse before they get better imo. Betbright and 188 will be far from the last to vanish.

Who would have thought 10 years ago lolbrokes and jokals would have to merge to even remotely stay relevant and bf would have a sporttsbook and need to merge with paddy power to remotely stay relevant to Denise.  Skybet would be 'Britains biggest bookmaker.  Stan James 'the original in running firm' doesn't even exist anymore.  Hills and Bald have just stood still and ten years on from 2009 online poker is so irrelevant to any decision any gaming company makes it wouldn't have been beleived in 2009.

I wouldn't like to have had a market leading business with Denise and Co right up my arse about to swallow me up.

They haven't helped themselves though.  Unsurprising how the FOBT's were the huge cash cow but the three biggest firms in the uk now (apart from bf's small number of paddy shops) have zero exposure to fobts at all for a decade.  The arrogance and laziness fobt's caused in the firms that had them has ultimately killed them all off as serious players in the market place.  The key years for online growth and market share hoovering was the same years the fobt's were having it off.  Ultimately the FOBT firms have killed the goose that laid the golden egg by taking the easy money short term but losing out massively long term in market share in the online game where in 2020 that is all that matters.

Sorry to hijack but Tikay if you were reading the heads up table thread in the sky poker forum this is exactly what spin ups are doing.

agree Arb. Very well said, time for a 'proper bookie' to emerge perhaps, problem is starting today utterly suffocated by AML/RG/KYC means it's very difficult.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/30/bookmakers-prepare-for-store-closures-as-fobt-stake-cut

Got to love some of the punters comments in this piece!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/01/bookmakers-bet-on-roulette-style-games-to-bypass-new-fobt-rules?CMP=share_btn_tw

What amazes me is that, people are amazed the bookies have instantly introduced 'similar' but 'different' games, whether on a machine or over counter. prob easier for them to think up a new game and get around the law than to try and teach someone to work out odds on real events.

PP and BetFred have pulled the new games with immediate effect.

Took them a day to realise that machine wagons have no idea what a pen and a betting slip are/or even exist in a betting shop. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/02/paddy-power-and-betfred-pull-games-as-regulator-investigates

I see to get people to get there money in quicker the ball only spins for about 2 seconds, dont think it hardly does a lap of the wheel .