Affordability checks - punting

[mardigras]

Whilst still a proposal, good idea, but the implementation an issue. Imagine that in NZ.

Affordability checks 'threaten future' of racing in Northern Ireland | Horse Racing News | Racing Post

 

[Tonkatime]

Seems like a massive over reach to me and I wouldn’t be comfortable providing a tab operator with that kind of information. I think promoting the self exclusion system is a more practical solution  

I personally can’t see how you would implement it practically without driving punters away in droves. How would it work on course? Bring your bank statement and rates bill to cup day? 

[mardigras]

6 hours ago, Gospel Of Judas said:

How's that going work? sounds like complete minefield. Sounds like something current dumb NZ Government under David Clark re finance lending sector dream up. Then be complete fail in all aspects.

I wouldn't do it the way they are indicating. But I'd do it. Quite easy to do, by vetting account holders and setting spending limits on accounts. In person punters get vetted and receive an identity card with details an acceptable monthly spending limit. The card gets used every time they bet and updated with their spending.

Similar to a bank with a credit limit, but as a protection measure against problem gambling.

If your situation changes, you can apply for an increased limit.

Piece of cake and with minimal compliance costs. It's exactly what is needed for not just TAB betting, but for casinos and pokies etc.

Edited March 4, 2022 by mardigras

[curious]

4 hours ago, mardigras said:

I wouldn't do it the way they are indicating. But I'd do it. Quite easy to do, by vetting account holders and setting spending limits on accounts. In person punters get vetted and receive an identity card with details an acceptable monthly spending limit. The card gets used every time they bet and updated with their spending.

Similar to a bank with a credit limit, but as a protection measure against problem gambling.

If your situation changes, you can apply for an increased limit.

Piece of cake and with minimal compliance costs. It's exactly what is needed for not just TAB betting, but for casinos and pokies etc.

Yes. I agree. Have suggested similar before. Basically a pre-approved gambling ID card. Though I think it should be based on actual spend (losses) rather than turnover. Certainly should apply to all gambling across the board.

[mardigras]

14 minutes ago, curious said:

Yes. I agree. Have suggested similar before. Basically a pre-approved gambling ID card. Though I think it should be based on actual spend (losses) rather than turnover. Certainly should apply to all gambling across the board.

Yes, I agree re losses. Which could easily work on the same basis. Swipe the card to bet, it works out what your losses are etc.

[mardigras]

14 hours ago, Tonkatime said:

Seems like a massive over reach to me and I wouldn’t be comfortable providing a tab operator with that kind of information. I think promoting the self exclusion system is a more practical solution  

I personally can’t see how you would implement it practically without driving punters away in droves. How would it work on course? Bring your bank statement and rates bill to cup day? 

I'd call it more a part of being a decent corporate citizen. But the implementation would have to be simple - such as a card as described below.

Self exclusion doesn't appear to be working to me.

Edited March 4, 2022 by mardigras

[curious]

There has been discussion in the professional problem gambling community about this, though specifically in relation to pokies as far as I know. Easy there to just have a card slot on the machines.

[Tonkatime]

14 hours ago, mardigras said:

I wouldn't do it the way they are indicating. But I'd do it. Quite easy to do, by vetting account holders and setting spending limits on accounts. In person punters get vetted and receive an identity card with details an acceptable monthly spending limit. The card gets used every time they bet and updated with their spending.

Similar to a bank with a credit limit, but as a protection measure against problem gambling.

If your situation changes, you can apply for an increased limit.

Piece of cake and with minimal compliance costs. It's exactly what is needed for not just TAB betting, but for casinos and pokies etc.

Slightly different to a bank with a credit limit though as you are not borrowing anything. Your essentially applying to spend your own money.
 

I can’t see it being anything but a disaster due to the compliance hassle. I certainly wouldn’t apply to be able to spend my own money on something and that would probably be the end of my involvement in racing. 
 

[mardigras]

9 hours ago, Tonkatime said:

Slightly different to a bank with a credit limit though as you are not borrowing anything. Your essentially applying to spend your own money.
 

I can’t see it being anything but a disaster due to the compliance hassle. I certainly wouldn’t apply to be able to spend my own money on something and that would probably be the end of my involvement in racing. 
 

Yes it certainly is different to a credit limit. 

I don't see any issues with compliance if it is done right. Any unwilling to meet the procedural aspects along the way is just collateral damage.

I'd be more than happy to go under such a process - I'd probably bet more knowing it was less likely I was winning money from people that could less afford to lose it.

[Tonkatime]

15 hours ago, mardigras said:

Yes it certainly is different to a credit limit. 

I don't see any issues with compliance if it is done right. Any unwilling to meet the procedural aspects along the way is just collateral damage.

I'd be more than happy to go under such a process - I'd probably bet more knowing it was less likely I was winning money from people that could less afford to lose it.

Are you a tote punter? 

[mardigras]

7 hours ago, Tonkatime said:

Are you a tote punter? 

Not generally - what difference does that make?

If your view is that betting fixed odds is not winning from other punters, then we have different views.

Punters are betting against each other. They define the odds. The TAB is just the broker managing the implication of all those bets. 

The idea behind the TAB is they pay out the winning punters from the funds obtained from the losing punters. They wouldn't be successful overall if they didn't work that way.

Aside from that, nearly all my betting is done peer-to-peer, which is me winning from funds supplied by other individuals. Which is how punting works generally (and the house takes a cut - or plans to take a margin).

Edited March 6, 2022 by mardigras

[curious]

On 3/5/2022 at 9:46 PM, Tonkatime said:

Slightly different to a bank with a credit limit though as you are not borrowing anything. Your essentially applying to spend your own money.
 

Not so sure. Some essentially are borrowing it, from their family housing, food, utility, clothing and school supply budgets etc.. That's what this idea is designed to reduce.

[Tonkatime]

12 hours ago, curious said:

Not so sure. Some essentially are borrowing it, from their family housing, food, utility, clothing and school supply budgets etc.. That's what this idea is designed to reduce.

Presumably on that basis it should also be bought in for Cigarettes and Alcohol purchases? Both of which can be harmful to the family budget. 

[Tonkatime]

12 hours ago, mardigras said:

Not generally - what difference does that make?

If your view is that betting fixed odds is not winning from other punters, then we have different views.

Punters are betting against each other. They define the odds. The TAB is just the broker managing the implication of all those bets. 

The idea behind the TAB is they pay out the winning punters from the funds obtained from the losing punters. They wouldn't be successful overall if they didn't work that way.

Aside from that, nearly all my betting is done peer-to-peer, which is me winning from funds supplied by other individuals. Which is how punting works generally (and the house takes a cut - or plans to take a margin).

I never suggested it made any difference. I was just asking if you bet on tote products. 

[mardigras]

58 minutes ago, Tonkatime said:

Presumably on that basis it should also be bought in for Cigarettes and Alcohol purchases? Both of which can be harmful to the family budget. 

Quite agree (or at least other measures equally aimed at reducing the risk of harm) - the way of corporate involvement is changing to the point of not 'profit at all costs', but a sense of community. Profiting at the expense of the areas around social responsibility, is seen more and more as a negative. 

[curious]

1 hour ago, Tonkatime said:

Presumably on that basis it should also be bought in for Cigarettes and Alcohol purchases? Both of which can be harmful to the family budget. 

Yes. I agree but this is a racing site so we are talking about mitigating the damage from problem gambling.

[Tonkatime]

15 hours ago, curious said:

Yes. I agree but this is a racing site so we are talking about mitigating the damage from problem gambling.

Yeah fair enough re it being a racing site, I just find it interesting as to how far you would spread the policy. I think the idea is a bit of over reach and the idea of having to prove you can afford in a drink in bar or restaurant, in any form is a bit crazy but each to their own.

[mardigras]

50 minutes ago, Tonkatime said:

Yeah fair enough re it being a racing site, I just find it interesting as to how far you would spread the policy. I think the idea is a bit of over reach and the idea of having to prove you can afford in a drink in bar or restaurant, in any form is a bit crazy but each to their own.

The big difference to me is that it in some part, shifts the costs of social policy from the government onto the organisation directly involved.

I'd rather pay less tax (or have the taxes spent elsewhere) due to the lengths the government will currently go to support these issues. Some of that support becoming part of the cost of doing business for an organisation.

I doubt restaurants associated with dining would be part of any such policy. I'd spread it only to the identifiable areas of harm that are ultimately costing the government/society massive amounts of money.

I guess you are happy for the government to continue forking out huge amounts of money trying to deal with such problems in society, just to avoid a minor change to individual lives.

[mardigras]

3 minutes ago, Gospel Of Judas said:

Yea where does he draw the line, on State overreach and knowledge. Gets to point where can't always out regulate, bad habits. 

It wouldn't have anything to do with the state in regards knowledge of information. You're already paying for the bad habits as you call them. Didn't you know?

Didn't think you were such a supporter of socialism.

Edited March 8, 2022 by mardigras

[mardigras]

1 minute ago, Gospel Of Judas said:

Regulation does, because you are in effect got control system. Then going be information retained, by whoever does monitoring of it.

I'm not with you. You don't have to apply to use any of these services, just like you don't have to apply for a credit card. The issuer of the card has the details of your application, or banks could be used as the issuer, for example.

You're making something out to be what it doesn't need to be. You'd rather persist with high level socialist policy where the government pays for all the support, rather than a user pays model. That's something I've learned about you that I didn't know before. 

[Tonkatime]

21 hours ago, mardigras said:

The big difference to me is that it in some part, shifts the costs of social policy from the government onto the organisation directly involved.

I'd rather pay less tax (or have the taxes spent elsewhere) due to the lengths the government will currently go to support these issues. Some of that support becoming part of the cost of doing business for an organisation.

I doubt restaurants associated with dining would be part of any such policy. I'd spread it only to the identifiable areas of harm that are ultimately costing the government/society massive amounts of money.

I guess you are happy for the government to continue forking out huge amounts of money trying to deal with such problems in society, just to avoid a minor change to individual lives.

Isn't it already funded through the problem gambling levy? 

[curious]

28 minutes ago, Tonkatime said:

Isn't it already funded through the problem gambling levy? 

Yes. But that's the bottom of the cliff. This is a more proactive initiative and relatively simple to initiate at minimal long term cost.

Edited March 8, 2022 by curious

[mardigras]

1 hour ago, Tonkatime said:

Isn't it already funded through the problem gambling levy? 

Funded? Subsidised at best.

And a further example of something where everyone involved with the activity pays towards the societal impacts. Rather than actively reducing the societal impacts/costs associated with the activity, benefitting society and benefitting all those that aren't creating those impacts - as they would no longer have to pay to the degree they do.

Edited March 8, 2022 by mardigras