blonde poker forum

Now that a lot of sites are asking for verification of finances so that they cover their backsides, what happens for example when you go to DTD and as they have done previously ask you to buy in via your PP account - if you never play on PP - I keep a minimal tiny amount on the site but I do not play on it - are they suddenly going to allow me to deposit £1500 to buy in to a live mtt.

This goes the same for PS,GG et al.

How are players currently coping at say wanting to play a 5k or $200 mtt online at the moment - also when we go back to playing live will the poker rooms need to know where your money came from - this does seem like a big potential can of worms.

I’m fairly sure casinos have been doing KYC on punters for a few years now.

Not sure it could work the same for poker.

They are going beyond that Celtic, as the talk is about limiting bets to what you can afford.

I think if any limits are based on earnings, it is going to be pretty disastrous for me, as I haven't had any "earnings" for some time now.   

 It may well be a good thing for my poker these days, but doesn't really fit with my sports betting, where my bet sizing is very much limited by what I can get on rather than what I can afford.   Need to find a high earner with an account...

I think it effects everybody, as UK poker field sizes are going to be affected.   The fields may well get softer at higher levels for the UK as a lot of pros may struggle to prove earings.

This is the first I've heard of this. Do casinos actually check how much people earn before they can play?

What if you try to enter a poker comp with 100k in your account but you're retired/not working/etc/bone idle etc?

https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/commission-weighing-up-affordability-evidence-but-no-timeline-set-for-findings/473931

Thanks.

We (Run It Once) have been doing limits depending on income for some since we started 2 years ago. It's not just income tho, winnings and savings can be considered too.

So if I rock up at Run It Once and want to play what happens? Do you want to see my Bank accounts, tax returns or what?

Just offer to buy Vinni dinner & you can have all the credit you want.

Blood sample from the dodgy sorts..

You have to verify your account first using an online verification system. If you pass that then you can play. If not, you will need ID & POA. Depending on deposits made from there depends on what you need to provide for us for the future.

Depending on depends...

Thanks Vin, That clears that up.

From a philosophical perspective I'd like to see all gambling closed down as far as possible. Perhaps with the exception of bricks and mortar casinos as I can just about find a rationale for their existence and it provides a big hurdle to vast numbers doing their dosh in the most nihilistic of fashions.

Setting aside a few whales with inherited wealth or similar, it's essentially licensed theft from one set of haves (skilled punters and firms) from dumbass punters who kid themselves they're getting some value from their experience of handing their money over to sharks.

I've loved playing poker at times, some good spells, the odd decent cash, drawers full of fiddys for decent periods, it was all great fun. Despite having no records , I'd imagine I'm a net contributor overall though.

I find it quite easy to rationalise on a personal level. ie I think the contribution was value for the distraction from real life it provided, for the enjoyment gained from the people I met along the way, for the fact I was lucky, never hard-up and never out of control.

But out of love and empathy for my fellow man, I welcome all the hurdles in peoples way to gamble and wish they were much higher.

Also from a philosophical perspective, what a 22 carat tosser you really are Glen.

Sorry, multi-tasking.

I would imagine you would be OK to just do the online verification or ID/POA to maintain playing on the site for a while. All UK players have a standard 1k monthly deposit limit with us at the moment due to the UKGC restrictions during lockdown. That can be increased in a lot of cases.

Haha, what part of my philosophy is bad

Saving dumbass punters from themselves or saving dumbass punters from themselves ?

Lemme know and confirm if you're a 'have' or a dumbass punter like me

What about people who buy cars that depreciate 30% as soon as they leave the showroom, or hair growth cream, or £400 trainers?

Alcohol & fags?


Priority boarding?


Are we banning those too?

I'd definitely prohibit the sale of hair growth cream. My fine head of hair is one of my USPs. Most of the above involve some exchange of value.

A better analogy would be to ask if we should prohibit scam selling of financial investments to people with mental health issues.

Plenty of things are prohibited and we all draw our line somewhere on whether we think that is a good or bad thing. I'd draw my line on gambling the other side of where the line is today. It's not that extreme a perspective

You said a blanket ban, you're backpedaling already.

Back-pedalling?

Lol BTW.

Scam selling of financial investments to anyone (including those with mental health issues) is illegal, so no back pedaling here.

Also Tom, reading and not putting words in people's mouths is one of your strong points:

'As far as possible'

'Some exceptions'

'Hurdles much higher'

Not seeing 'blanket ban' in my post.

Haha , pointedly spelt pedaling correctly to see you've now corrected :-)

Glen, you are so erudite that everything you write sounds like it's gospel, but sometimes it's just well presented bollocks.

Well, the odd exchange like this does invigorate and entertain (me) and bollocks or not it's still my perspective, very happy for people not to share it.

Well you've already reduced me to obscenity rather than rebuttal.

I'm going back to re-read what you said before I comment further. We don't need two of us making me look daft.

Ok. It's the "As far as possible" bit that lets you down.

It is of course possible to make all forms of gambling totally illegal. (Apart from the kind you enjoy obv) Is that what you are advocating?

If it was a binary choice id choose to prohibit all gambling.

Cant imagine that ever happening so very happy to see regulation that puts more hurdles in peoples way and gradually regulate it out of existence, like smoking.

So what about playing the stock market, raffles, pensioners playing pinochle, whist and euchre for pennies, £1ew once a year on the Grand National... ?

I obv wrote to my local MP regarding this issue and stated similar that i make a living in the very skilled world of sports betting which under these new rules could effectively be stopped whilst i could easily punt off 6 figures on the stock market or bitcoin with no regulation at all.  #whitecollargamblingisfine

Trying to find someone with plenty of cash already who fancies opening me a new batch of accounts for £500 is going to be challenging. This football season might just be the end of the road.

The masses should be allowed a free shot of gin and a £5 weekly flutter

I lolled and the Mrs asked why. (I made something up of course)

BTW Glen, I saw this challenge and thought of you.



(https://s8.directupload.net/images/210219/exwbn524.jpg) (https://www.directupload.net)

I'd certainly be in favour of online casinos being banned.

#My2c

But not the National Lottery, Scratch-cards, Bingo etc?

Just debating you understand.


BTW- Is this a conspiracy by people with good hair?

Ban all gambling?

Nirvana clearly trolling here, right?

The whole thing is ridiculous. There are (according to Google) 280,000 problem gamblers in the UK. The population of the UK is (again, according to Google) 67,610,000 or a number around that.

Some very simple maths indicates that is 0.4141% of the UK population. So therefore, an argument can potentially be made that in order to protect 0.4141% of the population, we are removing the option for the remaining 99.5859% of the population to gamble in some sort of form or another should they express the desire to do so.

Obviously, it isn't as simple as that and I agree some games do need winding in - the start of limiting speed of online slots for example appears to have worked, along with banning use of credit cards to deposit. There are other things but I'd be here for hours, one thing that does my head in though is when you play a slot, whether online or in a B&M casino, where a "winning spin" is less than the cost of the spin. Should be a minimum that you get your overall stake back in that spin, not your line stake. That's probably more protective of the player than an asinine deposit limit.

Natch, I can't see this (posts passim)

Bugger!

Can't you see it on your phone either?

We do weirder things and prohibit less damaging pursuits. Like walking in a park with 2 mates you don't live with. Let's say you double that 280k at a minimum for lives damaged by gambling and the problem does get bigger.

You mention that some things should be wound in and that would be my starting point - pretty self evident that certain types of gambling just gouge the punter and a skilled punter or a firm nicking off a an unskilled punter over a longer time frame is in the same continuum. All we're really discussing is where the lines should be drawn. I'm one end, and lots are at the other.

Surely we need to compare problem gamblers to total UK gamblers rather than the full UK population?

I think there should be a threshold where you have to prove you can afford your losses.

So that would apply to your average Joe and millionaires alike?

I'm aware that I seem very adversarial, some might even say argumentive in many of my posts but don't pay any mind, it's all in fun.

No worries Tom, I think we all understand it's in your nature to be difficult. It's Mrs Red we feel sorry for.

It's just so difficult when everyone is wrong all the time.

Very good point from the highly intelligent Hopkin here

Yep

Threshold means weekly lottery tickets, grand national punters and Saturday footy accumulators aren't affected.

Let's call it 100 loss a week as a threshold, if you want to be able to lose/risk more than that you have to be able to show that you can both afford it and understand what you are doing.

Average Joe and Mr Millionaire the same, either income or savings etc
But recognition for people like Arb too that can show they aren't losing.

They should have a duty of care to not destroy peoples lives and to know where the money is coming from.

It's the stupidity of a weekly deposit limit that makes no sense.   I could easily have a big losing day/week/month or huge ante post portfolio on football/cheltenham which is all deposits and no returns for months.   I could see be depositing a serious chunk into betfair so i never realistically have to deposit again and get around the deposit limits which prove nothing in many cases.  

If i deposited £100k into betfair before the rules changed i would probably never have to make another deposit into betfair in my life.   I could have huge losing days/weeks but never deposit to alert whoever that i have lost more than the set limit.   Then just withdraw my wages as and when i see fit.   There are so many things that haven't been thought out about it.

They have had 13k responses, so I would guess that although a lot of them will just be "how very dare you" most of the problems with the plan will have been highlighted.

Horse/sports/poker players seem to have been saying that casino games are the issue and not their particular poison.  The only way that the GC is going to buy that is if problem gambling is significantly lower in the "thinking games" and I'd be a bit surprised if that was the case.

I tried to bring up variance as an issue, but not sure that they are ever going to accept any argument that, in effect, is "losers should be allowed to chase" but, hopefully, they will accept that if someone is a winner they should be allowed more leeway that a loser.     

i think it actually is the case that the 'can't win casino games' are a much bigger issue with problem gamblers more due to the speed of chasing than the fact they have a gtd house edge against them.    I would imagine the edge against them in sports betting is bigger becaause they are clueless but they can't turn over money every 30 seconds like they can in an online casino which grinds them into the dust so much quicker.

there was a reason 20 years ago you had to wait for 48 hours to enter a live casino in the uk after signing up but no such thing exists even now to walk into a betting shop.   Casino gaming is quick turnover/gtd negative edge and high limits.  You will lose a £1000 deposit much quicker in a casino as a mug with 2.75% edge against you than you will with a 5-10% edge against you in sports betting because compounded turnover losses don't kill you every 30 seconds.   If you deposit £500 and bet £100 every 30 seconds on roulette online you should maths wise lose the lot within an hour or so that isn't unlucky just maths taken care of itself.   Try doing that on the horses or football and losing your money that quickly 100% gtd.   It takes 180 £100 spins to neutral ev lose £500.   So betting £100 every 20 seconds online at single zero roulette with the repeat function rapid play button that will happen and be normal.   You have run £200 'good' if you only lost £300 after an hour.  99.9% of punters have no idea this is the maths reality

Yes, my main perception/concern is the online casinos being similar if not worse than the FOTBs were in the shops.

But in this day and age there should be a way to make sure young Terence has sorted his rent before clicking 26 and the neighbours by 10 repeat, repeat, repeat......

The idea of having two log-ins, one for casino bullshit and one for sports betting was interesting on the face of it.

Then again you only have to point towards a Paul Merson or Matty Etherington and see that Denise's home page full of Ecudorian L2 womens' football on a Tuesday morning to realise that there ultimately isn't any difference.

I'm with Glenn the puritan here.

Sorry mate, your hair doesn't qualify.

:)

Almost said I was about to put an end to the good-hair theory.

For those that think financial checks are the way forward - do not be surprised or have your feelings hurt - when down the road you go into a restaurant, off license, pub or even to book a holiday and they ask to see your financial situation and if you can afford it or should you be putting that money into a pension for your old age rather than buying that bottle of gin.

Come to think of it we should ban people like me from buying racehorses and greyhounds - as very few of us see a return - then we could shut down a lot of the football clubs who if it was not for their owners and supporters, most are in deficit, rugby clubs et al - anything that will potentially lose money - shut it down.

Lets close down these investment platforms 90 percent lose their money - why do we not ban risk completely - thus no more births - no people - no risk.

Since after WW2 we have become a world that likes to introduce more regulations and rules - strange we now have more poverty - more kids cant read or write, the gap between the rich and poor has grown - for those Sci Fi readers - remember the things people laughed at (that will never happen) mobile phones - video calls - space travel - the list is endless - perhaps George Orwell was on to something.  

I don't really get your point here at all?

#accidentallyleftwing

What I think he's saying, and I hope he'll forgive me if I'm wrong, is that you have to be very careful about letting go of one freedom because more often than not it leads to the loss of several others.




    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

There is a new law coming that will make trespass a criminal offence, it is designed specifically to target Gypsies and Travellers.

Most people will think it's a great idea... Until they get on the wrong side of it.

Spoilt it by claiming there was more poverty and illiteracy.  I'd dispute the freedoms point is valid here, as restrictions on gambling have been far worse in the not too distant past.  So little poverty these days that people are turning down rakeback.   I will give him the gap between rich and poor

And not sure your jews point really works when it is Soros and the Rothschilds that are taking away all our freedoms :/

Fair comment, it was a bit of a stretch.

I was just trying to say that people who don't gamble will think that these rules won't affect them but somewhere down the line, they will.

Red Dog 10/10  ----- Food Banks - World Poverty is definitely on the increase - society trying to cancel out people who do not share their views (questions for another day).

Regulations - can have a damaging effect as well as a positive - if it is your hard earnt money or inherited you should be able to spend it on how you see fit - if you have a gambling problem there are many services out there to help you with your problem -

I'm generally fairly libertarian in my views and totally get this viewpoint but you do pick some strange examples - global poverty is palpably an improving metric rather than a reducing one.

This from a man who chooses his hair as a USP.

I used to have hair...

I always feel a little uncomfortable when Soros and the Rothschilds are put forward as examples of "Jews".

Not all Jews are fabulously wealthy nor do they all feel the same about topical issues, yet we always seem to be lumped together as one similar-minded group - The Jews are this, that or the other and when examples are needed it's always Soros or the Rothschilds rather than an atheist average Joe Schmo like me.

He was being sarcastic, Ralph, "Soros" and "Rothschild" are anti-semitic dogwhistles.

Apologies for not reading it in it's correct context and getting whooshed in that case.

In my defence: it was Tom's straight-faced reply as though the comment were literal which set me off.

Typical Tom, always starting something

A lot of talk about this on most walking/wild camping forums with the threat that landowners will use this to prevent walking/camping on their land.  Luckily in Scotland we have right to roam with basic rules for walkers/campers which works with few problems.

Geo

Wild camping also allowed in Scotland if I'm not mistaken Geo?

I have a few hundred acres of beautiful woodland and wild meadows on my doorstep but you're not allowed to pitch a tent.

I'm afraid I was no wiser than you Ralph.

Yes Tom and most landowners are fine as long as you stick to a basic set of rules:

Camp in small numbers.
Stay in one place for a maximum of three nights only.
Do not camp in enclosed fields of livestock or crops.
Camp away from buildings, roads and historic structures.
Take your litter with you.
Use a stove rather than a fire where possible.
Check advice on fire risk conditions.
Keep fires small, controlled and supervised.
Bury human waste and urinate 30 metres away from open water.
Remove all traces of your tent pitch – including any camp fire debris.

Local council in parts of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs have banned camping in a couple of areas where there have been problems with litter, cutting down trees and other unsociable acts. Caused unfortunately by the day-tripper types as opposed to regular wild campers.

I still spend a couple of days camping a few times a year, obviously lockdown has hindered this. It was my 60th in January and I usually like to get away for that week as I’m not one for all the fuss of birthdays and had planned to go across to Arran for a few days camping with the dog but unfortunately couldn’t. Hopefully get out there in April.

Geo

It's always the few that spoil it for the many Geo.

Mind you, I would have trouble urinating 30 metres from a waterway, I can't even manage 2 metres up a wall these days.

Probably my fault.  I realised when I wrote it that a lot of people aren't on my wavelength where dark humour is invlolved, hence I added the smiley after.  I think Marky would probably get it as many Covid conspiracy threads on twitter seem to inevitably lead to someone blaming the Rothschilds or Soros for the "bad" thing that has happened.  Luckily for them, "evil" Bill Gates takes much of the flack these days.

There aren't even actual "bad" things, just the things that they consider "bad" such as people giving up chunks of their wealth to help develop a vaccine that could save many millions annually. 

Anyway just to be clear, the Rothschilds and Soros aren't to blame and if I put a smiley in this post ot would only be after the first two paragraphs. 

OK. I've solved it.

Only 10% of the money you wager actually counts as a bet. So if you want to bet £10 you have to put £100 on and then you get £90 back.

Brilliant eh?

Next case..

Big of a different topic but my Partypoker account got locked today.

In order to unlock the account they want ID (clearly visible), secret word, and for me to hold this in front of my face then take a picture.

Is this really the only way to check an ID is valid by comparing the photo with a selfie?

Pretty surprised to have to send in a picture of myself.

Definately not the only way

There is an app that you upload your ID too and then take a selfie (in app) that verifies your ID.

Used by a few finance companies.

What happens to the Poker Stables - the majority of people that join a stable, I presume  join because they can not finance the stakes they play themselves. Which surely means that they are people that need protection - how is a horse going to receive the funds now to play - surely if they are transferred by the stable to the horse this could be construed by the Gambling Commission as inciting some to gamble who does not have the funds to gamble.

Also if the stable pay directly into the horses bank account and then the horse transfers to the site - how does the horse prove that this is legitimate earnings or income.

 

Way too many things wrong with this post to even attempt trying to answer it.