'I don't think they truly understand a lot of betting' - concerns raised over Gambling Commission consultation

The Gambling Commission's understanding of betting has been questioned as further details about financial risk checks for punters were being digested following the publication of the industry regulator's consultation on the subject this week.

In April the government set out its proposals for the controversial affordability checks in its long-delayed white paper, with what were described as background checks taking place at a trigger of £125 net loss within a month or £500 within a year. A second tier of enhanced checks would come in at proposed thresholds of a £1,000 net loss within 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days. 

However, under the more detailed proposals set out in the Gambling Commission consultation, anyone triggering checks at that second tier could be forced to undergo an enhanced check into their finances as often as twice a year. 

And for the purposes of calculating a net loss, it is proposed that any money won more than seven days ago for those at the £1,000 threshold, and 90 days ago at the £2,000 threshold, would be ignored, meaning that some could be made to prove they could afford their gambling, despite being in profit.

Punter and analyst Steve Mellish said he believed the proposals betrayed a lack of knowledge about betting at the Gambling Commission.

Steve Mellish: "arbitrary 24 hours or 90 days doesn't mean anything"Credit: Edward Whitaker

He said: "My biggest complaint about the commission is I don't think they truly understand a lot of betting, certainly serious betting. It's a long haul. People can definitely have bad 24-hour periods, people can have bad multi-day periods.

"The smaller the period the less representative it is. I have bet seriously since the end of the 70s and there would be many, many periods I have qualified for the first one and there would be some periods when I would have qualified for the second I'm sure."

Mellish said he believed bookmakers already had enough information to know when to intervene with those potentially suffering problems. He said: "Every bookmaker you bet with in the country has to the penny how you get on over a period of time. Every bookmaker knows exactly how I've got on."

The arbitrary 24 hours or 90 days doesn't mean anything. If a person is betting completely different to normal, or suddenly chasing, those should be the warning signals, not how you have got on in a very limited time, in my opinion."

If somebody who has bet £10 or £15 all their life is suddenly having £100 on things they are entitled to ask why. Equally they are not entitled to restrict them to £3.75!"

Professional gambler Neil Channing was another to voice concern about a lack of knowledge of betting at the Gambling Commission, but also its "lack of interest in finding anything out about betting". Channing also said the proposals for calculating a net loss contained in the Gambling Commission's consultation could backfire.

Laurence Robertson: "If I won £1,000 at Cheltenham and then lost £900 at Aintree, I haven’t lost and shouldn’t be treated as if I have"Credit: Nicholas Jones

He added: "If you are truly trying to get people to gamble in a more responsible way, if I win some money on the first of the month and by the ninth of the month that money doesn't count any more as my winnings, isn't that encouraging me to punt through my money quicker, rather than when I actually fancy something?"

'I'd better have a bet because otherwise it won't count'. That feels totally counter-productive to what they are trying to achieve." 

Sports and gambling minister Stuart Andrew has pledged that affordability checks will be "frictionless" and that the damage to British racing's income will be limited, although the government has launched a review of the levy system to ensure the sport is properly financed.

However, British racing's leadership has voiced concerns about the potential impact, with Arena Racing Company having estimated the checks already in place to have cost the sport £40 million a year as a result of punters refusing to submit to them. 

Conservative MP Laurence Robertson said the proposals for financial checks were always going to be "the most difficult and controversial" in the white paper and urged people to respond to the consultation to protect racing's interests. He added: "When I spoke to the secretary of state about the proposals, she assured me that the calculation would be based on net loss. So the question now is, how far back will they go? If I won £1,000 at Cheltenham and then lost £900 at Aintree, I haven’t lost and shouldn’t be treated as if I have.

"All the secretaries of state and sports ministers who have held office while waiting for the white paper to be published have recognised the crucial link between betting and racing and have said they would do nothing which would have the potential to threaten racing's financial future. We therefore need to make submissions to the consultation and make sure that we hold the government to this promise."

When would affordability checks be required?

Affordability checks on punters, or enhanced financial checks as the government refers to them, are set to be triggered by a net loss of £1,000 within 24 hours and £2,000 within 90 days. But the way the Gambling Commission proposes calculating the net loss position is proving deeply controversial, because it believes that winnings should be ignored if they fall outside the last seven days for the £1,000 trigger, or the last 90 days for the £2,000 trigger. To understand how this might work in practice, we look at three scenarios for bettors at the Cheltenham Festival.

Example 1

A punter deposits £1,200 on day one of Cheltenham and loses £1,000
Enhanced financial check required, as the customer's net loss is £1,000

Example 2

A punter deposits £1,200 on day of Cheltenham and wins £1,000. On day two, they break even and on day 3 they lose £1,200
Enhanced financial check not required, as despite the 24hr net loss being over the £1,000 threshold, the day one winnings are taken into account as they fall within the last seven days

Example 3

A punter has £50,000 in their betting account from a big win two weeks before Cheltenham. On day one of the festival, they place a series of bets and have a net loss of £1,000
Enhanced financial check required, as despite the customer's actual net position being +£49,000 the winnings are not from the last seven days and so would be ignored for the purposes of determining whether a check is required

The Racing Post wants to hear from you. What has been your experience of affordability checks since the white paper was published at the end of April, and what do you think of the government's proposals? Have affordability checks affected your betting behaviour?

It's a chance for your voice to be heard. Email the Racing Post at editor@racingpost.com with the subject 'Affordability checks' to share your experiences, your thoughts about the government's proposals, and your contact details.

Read these next:

Punters could face affordability checks every six months under new proposals triggered by white paper  

Tell us about your experience of affordability checks 

The Front Runner is our unmissable email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday. Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content.