Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The international hot potato that is internet betting
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The international hot potato that is internet betting
Hardly a week goes by without online gambling being in the news somehow. This burgeoning industry rakes in over $20 billion worldwide every year according to the latest H2 Gambling estimates. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that governments everywhere are eyeing the multi-million pot with great interest, though the reasons behind this interest aren’t always the same.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://corporate.hkjc.com/corporate/rgp/english/index.aspx
Very sad
Probably with common standards for licensing and agreed minimum code of conduct.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546180/Perversion-faith-cause-21st-century-wars-battle-against-just-beginning-says-Tony-Blair.html
I think you are wrong on Russia's motives for the clampdown on gambling which has occurred under Putin.
It may well be that Russia has publicly justified their actions on the grounds of the "social and economic burdens of gambling addiction" but these, unless very loosely interpreted, are not the real reasons for the new policy on gambling.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and under Yeltsin's big bang liberalisation and move to free markets, 24 hour casinos were opened almost daily in Moscow (and other large Russian cities). Almost all were owned and controlled by the mainly Caucasian (mainly Chechen and Georgian) mafia groups and were used to launder money from other illicit money generated in the enormous black economies (from government bribes, through retail trade to prostitution and drugs).
This was tolerated under Yeltsin as the gambling became a taxable entry point for the black and grey money. However, the Caucasian issue became politicised with the Chechen wars and the gambling operations became intertwined with the financing of islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Terrorist attacks at key public locations in Moscow quickly alienated the Russian public from the Caucasian mafia and there were widespread calls for the Russian government to clamp down and be seen to clamp down on the gambling business.
With 9/11 came international pressure to police money laundering and this, with the domestic terrorist issues, let to Putin's move to virtually eliminate gambling operations. Another factor was Putin's attempt to eradicate municipal corruption deriving from close links between city administrators and the 'mafia' groups.
Now you may ask what has this all to do with internet gambling? But this was lumped together with gambling premises as most international facing internet operations based in Russia were owned and controlled by the same groups as the casinos.
If Putin really had the health of Ivan Public at heart, he would have moved more strongly to regulate and diminish alcohol sales.
twitter.com/
BBCPeterH/status/
427528018178113536/photo/1
26/01/2014 12:04
....and now the results for the Musketeers football league. 4-1, 4-1, 4-1, 4-1, 4-1, 4-4.
You can no more outlaw gambling than you can sin, so the best approach is a regulatory one. In the UK, we have the Gambling Commission, which isn't the stoutest of watchdogs but it is at least readily answerable to Parliament and thus the British punter. Most internet bookies avoid even this light control by registering abroad. When I once tried to complain about Betfair, I was referred to the Gibraltar Gambling Commission. It took three months for them to acknowledge my email and I never received a reply to the substance of the complaint.
The answer is to tax on a place of user basis and require submission to the UK Commission. This would give the Government a tax rake, and the punter plenty of confidence. Unlicensed outfits would of course still trade from outside the UK, but you'd be mad to bet with them in these circumstances.
The main UK bookies will not of course like the idea of either taxation or stronger powers for the UK Commission, but that's only because they have become accustomed to making money for old rope in an extremely lightly regulated industry. In the long run, they would probably benefit as much as the punters, but I wouldn't expect them to admit that.
As China has become richer (and Indonesia and India, etc.), its people have started to eat more meat.
This is nothing to do with "banksters", Chinese people are just behaving exactly as their cousins in Taipei or Hong Kong did when they became richer, just on a much larger scale.
And that is why there is global food price inflation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10581189/Alternative-policing-in-some-minority-communities.html
Did you see Russia by Road this week? Really quite interesting at times.
But its unanswerable that to feed a growing world population we are going to see a very rapid industrialisation of food production, especially in China and South East Asia.
That macro theme led me to start focusing on production animal vaccines as an investment thesis about 5 years ago.
The tv ads are pure filth
They should be forced to say "We close winning punters or restrict them so heavily that its not worth their while" as they try to make it look like its all a bit of fun
My friends can't believe that they are even allowed to do that
Met a girl last night, who doesn't want to date me, and wasn't impressed that I worked in the gambling industry, and started saying it was akin to drug dealing, playing on addicts weakness...
Mind you, if she had liked me she would've seen past that!
= the same old same old spin and deceit as his Sith master, Brown.
Playing political games with the UK's economy, Hollande-lite policy for setting the many against the few and treading the finely defined line of getting a 'surplus' whilst intending no such thing as joe public or indeed the media understand a deficit to be, see already the BBC swallowing it hook, line and...
"He suggested the 50p rate would only be in place while Labour cleared the budget deficit, which it aims to do by 2020. He also ruled out raising it further."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25902208
Might as well bring Brown back with his golden rules and adjusted cycles.
YOU CAN'T TRUST LABOUR WITH THE ECONOMY. NEVER COULD, STILL CAN'T.
vent over.
OT
Many thanks for putting me right about the LNER coaches being painted steel. This has reminded me belatedly of the famous half-timbered, half-brickwork Bulleid Tavern Cars on the Southern postwar - which are obviously exactly the sort of thing Mr Farage wants to fulfil UKIP policy manifestoes on train livery. Can't find an exterior photo but the second link shows the outside design clearly.
http://www.20thcenturylondon.org.uk/ltm-1998-89769
http://www.robbiesrollingstock.co.uk/images/SR_Coaches/SR04.gif
Just walked into this restaurant:
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186338-d3602060-Reviews-Dishoom_Shoreditch-London_England.html
Anyone been there?
Howabout "I need the love of a good woman to get me back to the straight and narrow"
I remember being in France, and being frustrated as hell, as I couldn't access Betfair.
Made a mental note never to schedule a holiday to France when there's a major betting event on.
I believe it was Morus of this parish, who tipped Cathy Ashton at 40/1 as the European Foreign Minister, but couldn't back it as he was in America at the time, and betting was restricted there for him.
The Gambling Commission was not interested, full stop.
The Advertising Complaints Commission were more supportive, but felt their hands were tied unless I could point to a specific ad and the way that one ad was misleading. My response was that they are all misleading but they felt that was too sweeping and we left it there.
Parliament would be another channel but there ain't many votes in supporting punters and the bookmakers are well represented there already.
Not sure what can be practically done. A class action, or internet campaign, perhaps?
P.S. Haven't been watching 'Russia by Road' but will look out for it.
Sure, obsessive gamblers are a danger to themselves and others but then so too are obsessives of many types, notably drinkers and smokers, where the addiction is physical as well as mental. They all need help, and a proper regulatory framework.
I'd strengthen the hand of the Gambling Commission, and kick those slot machines out of betting shops. It wouldn't solve all problems at a stroke, but it would be a nice start.
Pity the rich
It has been said of Ed Balls that he sometimes has the pop-eyed air of a man undergoing an unexpected prostate examination.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10598306/Bash-the-rich-and-you-deprive-us-of-what-their-taxes-pay-for.html
He could easily adopt a Krugmanite, Obama-type view middle road between Osborne/OECD austerity and untrammeled stimulus à la Hollandaise. And justify it intellectually.
Instead he picked on a single populist measure and an implausible promise to gain publicity. He doesn't believe in either the policy or the goal. He admitted in interview today that the 50p tax rate won't raise any significant tax revenue or reduce the deficit, and that he will introduce it only for political reasons.
No wonder we can't trust Labour, when their chief economic spokesman admits that he is deceiving the public.
There is no equivalency with Osborne's policies. Both may be political players, but Osborne's fiscal strategy and policies are at leasr economically credible, genuine and fully worked.
From last year
Lord Rennard Allegations: Channel 4 Cathy Newman Calls Clegg Phone-In
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/27/lord-rennard-allegations-channel-4-cathy-newman-_n_2772425.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
"It's false advertising really isn't it?"
Yes, I think so, and if the Advertising Complaints Commission wanted to, it could really bring them to heal but it's a bit 'political' and beyond their normal line of work.
At least they were rather more sympathetic than the Gambling Commission, whose line was simply that 'traders aren't obliged trade with a customer if they don't want to'. I never got a reply when I gave the obvious rejoinder that traders are most certainly not allowed to operate a cartel, which is what in effect bookmakers are doing when they close down winning accounts.
http://bit.ly/1mLwiHH
http://jamesracing.co.uk/
As to 'fully worked' that will be the Osborne who chose political tourism to having a 'fully worked' Budget in 2012.
Thanks Isam. Looks good.
I certainly agree with him about Star Sports. Their odds aren't great, but they will take a bet, and are civil.
Who pays the piper calls the tune.
Will be working for them on course at Cheltenham for the festival as it happens if you are going
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/ten-minute-rule-bill/
and here
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private-members/
We must arrange a meet.
email me: arklebar@gmail.com
Took his time to say anything mind and couldn't really say anything else. Personally I think it's a good thing that the luvvies of Hampstead will have to chat about fundamentalist Islam at their dinner parties. There's also the hope that the petition will provide some useful leads for GCHQ. I think the Labour candidate (who is a muslim) has also yet to condemn, so that's not very good. And the BBC don't look great either given that they censored the cartoons in the first place. All a bit of a (politically correct) mess.
Tomorrow though. Tomorrow.
http://www.antiguawto.com
It's actually a pretty big deal. The WTO has OKed the Antiguan proposal. It creates a template for other small countries in trade disputes with the Americans.
I am not chasing back to the 2010 forecasts to verify your claim about a forecast £600 bn increase in household debt.
It just doesn't seem plausible to me.
Lending to all sectors has been flat or falling since 2010 (actually since 2008) until the middle of this year when we started to see upturns in net lending to the household sector
Even so secured lending to individuals is only now averaging a net growth rate of just less than 1.0%, or around £12 bn per year. Unsecured lending only started to grow from the beginning of 2013 and reached at growth rate of 4.0% only at the end of the year, say an annualised rate of £3 bn per year. Both are top estimates built on cherry picked high monthly growth rates.
So at current rates of net lending a five year term would see a £75 bn net increase in both secured and unsecured lending to households.
Even given that lending is well below pre-crisis levels (e.g. 40% below for mortgages), it is inconceivable that a £600 bn increase, or eight times the five year amount at current growth rates, could have been contemplated in 2010. This especially applies as all forms of lending were still in sharp decline from mid 2008 to early 2010, which would have given the base from which any forecast growth would be predicted.
Are we talking another false meme here?
I shall leave it to you to provide the evidence.
A well-regulated industry that discourages addictive behaviour does seem the best balance. I'd like to see them having a sensible discussion with the Gambling Commission which triggered automatic warnings if people were playing intensively for long periods. There was a computer game which after N hours of play drew your attention in the style of a role-playing message to the fact that there "you have discovereed" a bed in another room and you might consider using it...
They want people to become addicted and lose money, that's why they exist.
Then they ban people that are good at it and win.
It's like alcohol companies being allowed only to sell to people with a drink problem
You get easier to beat everyday.
But what makes this amusing is that its your beloved OBR which provides the figures:
" The Office for Budget Responsibility has raised its prediction of total household debt in 2015 by a staggering £303bn since late last year, in the belief that families and individuals will respond to straitened times by extra borrowing. Average household debt based on the OBR figures is forecast to rise to £77,309 by 2015, rather than the £66,291 under previous projections.
Economists say the figures show that George Osborne's drive to slash the public deficit and his predictions on growth are based on assumptions that debt will switch from the government's books to private households – undermining his claims to be a debt-slashing chancellor.
Labour accused the government of piling agony on to hard-pressed families and storing up long-term problems of personal indebtedness.
At last year's budget the official forecast from Osborne was that household debt – which includes mortgages and credit card debt – would be £1,823bn. But in a recent adjustment not highlighted in last month's budget, the OBR has raised the figure to £2,126bn. "
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/02/family-debt-burden-government-figures
Of course the failure for houdhold borrowing to soar is the main reason why Osborne is going to miss his borrowing targets so badly.
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/household debt paper formatted.doc1.pdf
Perhaps Avery could put these household debt predictions in a yellow box when he's recovered from his 'false meme' humiliation:
2010 £1560bn
2011 £1628bn
2012 £1712bn
2013 £1826bn
2014 £1963bn
2015 £2126bn
Now I don't know if it was Osborne or the OBR who expected household debt to rise by £300bn from 2014 to 2015 but whoever did so clearly isn't fit to be let anywhere near the public finances.
I wonder if said complainers might be asked by how much they've increased their own earnings during the last decade and also by how much their employees earnings have increased.
Article from Nov 2013 states that the average household debt is currently £54,141.
I find it implausible that the average family will borrow a further £23,159 in the next two years. I'm going to go with the OBR got its forecasts wrong.
edit: article also cites the total level of personal debt as being £1.43tn vs the £1.8bn you cite below, so clearly measuring something slightly different.
Avery
You get easier to beat everyday.
But what makes this amusing is that its your beloved OBR which provides the figures:
" The Office for Budget Responsibility has raised its prediction of total household debt in 2015 by a staggering £303bn since late last year, in the belief that families and individuals will respond to straitened times by extra borrowing. Average household debt based on the OBR figures is forecast to rise to £77,309 by 2015, rather than the £66,291 under previous projections.
Economists say the figures show that George Osborne's drive to slash the public deficit and his predictions on growth are based on assumptions that debt will switch from the government's books to private households – undermining his claims to be a debt-slashing chancellor.
Labour accused the government of piling agony on to hard-pressed families and storing up long-term problems of personal indebtedness.
At last year's budget the official forecast from Osborne was that household debt – which includes mortgages and credit card debt – would be £1,823bn. But in a recent adjustment not highlighted in last month's budget, the OBR has raised the figure to £2,126bn. "
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/02/family-debt-burden-government-figures
Of course the failure for houdhold borrowing to soar is the main reason why Osborne is going to miss his borrowing targets so badly.
Nothing there to evidence growth in debt of £600 bn, ar.
The Guardian article suggests the rise over five years was forecast to be £303 bn.
There is also an awful lot of tosh in that article with many criticisms of the austerity strategy pursued by Osborne now looking ludicrous, I wonder how many times The Guardian has called in evidence the "Nobel prize winner economist Paul Krugman" in the past year?
[stops myself rolling on the floor laughing like Pork]
Back to business.
At last year's budget the official forecast from Osborne was that household debt – which includes mortgages and credit card debt – would be £1,823bn. But in a recent adjustment not highlighted in last month's budget, the OBR has raised the figure to £2,126bn.
Current amount of outstanding debt (M4Lx BoE mid 2013) is £1,180 bn. This probably isn't the same measure as the OBR use but it is good enough for the purposes of this discussion. The £2.1 bn statistic therefore looks distinctly suspect, ar.
My guess is that this is a total misreading of an OBR statistic by The Guardian (or their sources).
You really must not take your economic data from Alan Rusbridger and Toby Helm!
With that statement being a hostage to fortune, I will humour you by going back to the OBR March 2011 EFO to see what Helm was banging on about.
But I think Annie Power's time has come, backed her NRNB in the Champion and on Betfair in the World Hurdle
I think you've just dug your hole another mile deeper Avery ;-)
I dare say that your mate Pork WILL be rolling on the floor laughing when he reads this thread.
Not looking good.
OBR March 2011 EFO
Lenders reported a modest rise in the availability of secured credit to UK households in the fourth quarter of 2010, as shown in Chart 3.10. However, the outlook for the housing market was reported to have weighed on demand for secured credit and also reduced the availability of higher loan to value ratio mortgage finance.;
and,
The household sector is also unlikely to receive support from the housing market this year. After stabilising last year, house prices are expected to experience a further small fall in 2011 and negligible growth in 2012. February’s data on mortgage approvals continue to remain significantly below their long-run average and show little evidence of returning towards it. We have slightly revised down our forecast for property transactions over 2011.
Can't see a thumping increase in household debt coming out of this report, but I continue my search.
Either:
1) Osborne's deficit reduction predictions really did require such a huge increase in houshold borrowing ie a direct and immediate return to the economy of 2007. Which suggests he saw nothing wrong with the Brown economy and which would correlate to his lack of criticism of it.
or
2) The OBR are a bunch of incompetants with no common sense. In which case why are we funding such a pointless and useless non-job quango.
NB - 'the £1.8bn you cite below' isn't the actual present household debt its what the OBR were predicting it would be at the end of 2013 in their April 2011 report.
Your attempts to pretend this document:
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/household debt paper formatted.doc1.pdf
doesn't exist are reminiscent of Portsmouth council and the Hancock report.
Beginning to look even wprse:
OBR March 2011 EFO
In 2009 and 2010, the private sector paid back more existing debt than it took on new debt, as shown in Table 3.4.7 This is likely to reflect a combination of tighter supply (reflected in higher funding costs) and reduced demand (as deleveraging continues). Analysis of past financial crises has shown that subsequent economic recoveries have not typically been associated with a rebound in the stock of credit. IMF analysis has found that credit growth tends to turn positive only seven quarters after the resumption of output growth.;
and, There is no way the OBR are going to predict an increase of £600 bn in household debt in this report, ar.
I'll eat Pork if you can prove me wrong.
Annie Power will win whichever race she goes for. I suspect it will be the Champion Hurdle - you don't get too many chances to win that and it's infinitely more prestigious than the other two races.
Absent Annie, Big Bucks should be OK for a fifth World Hurdle. It will be fitter in March, and it won't get another bad ride!
@Nick P
"A well-regulated industry that discourages addictive behaviour does seem the best balance. I'd like to see them having a sensible discussion with the Gambling Commission which triggered automatic warnings if people were playing intensively for long periods. There was a computer game which after N hours of play drew your attention in the style of a role-playing message to the fact that there "you have discovereed" a bed in another room and you might consider using it..."
The backgammon site I used to use had a similar device. In my case it was both unnecessary and ineffective, but credit to them for trying.
It scarcely touches the big problems with the major bookmakers though. As Isam has suggested, the real issue is that they contrive to cream profits from games where the punter has no chance at all - like their wretched slot machines - whilst closing down any skill-based gambling. In short, they want mug-punters only. You can hardly blame them, but should a responsible Government be allowing it?
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/household debt paper formatted.doc1.pdf http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/household debt paper formatted.doc1.pdf
And one more time to make five in all:
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/household debt paper formatted.doc1.pdf
Have Annie Power backed at 5.6 to win and 3.075 to be placed in the world hurdle. Can lay the win bet off (to zero up) but not the place. Wondering whether to lay the win part off and take 4.0 NRNB with 365 ?
*Trying to work out if NRNB is worth a point or more.... I thought she'd be entered for the Worlds but maybe not.
Advice ?
Edit: Worked it out, betting without the NRNB is effectively a multiple - that she enters the race with the first part.
That means that the 4.0 is better value than the 5.6 I think...
1. Debt figures are gross not net (at least the column you quoted above);
2. There was a £290 bn one-off uplift in 2010 due to changed methodology (mainly pension related).
3. They include pension contributions, liabilities and assets.
So these figures are 'chalk and cheese' when comparing with the "net debt figures" used by the BoE, ONS and in the main body of the EFO report.
I now see that Malcolmg responded with a couple of posts along this vein - 'That is a downright LIE, show us the proof, only last week in Ayrshire both schools went from NO to YES after the debate.'
I certainly didn't attempt to mislead or lie in my post, I actually googled this info before I posted because I was originally going to post up some links to the very highly publicised mock Indy Referendums over the last year. I have to admit that I had to go google far more specifically about this Ayrshire school as I certainly hadn't seen anything about it in the Scottish news online or anywhere else! I discovered it had been reported just couple of days ago locally to that area and a couple of sites online as far as I can see. A bigger man would apologise for two such intemperate outbursts, but I won't be holding my breath.
Annie Power could be one of the best ever. Zarkander is no slouch - its official rating of 165 is by no means overly flattering and would make it Champion Hurdle class- but the mare has trounced it twice.
Can't wait to see her take on The Fly!