Two Months of LeoVegas.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

The state encouraged people to get into debt with the national lottery franchise. It targets the poorest people in our society who are encouraged to spend money that can''t afford because "it could be them". You don''t see rich people buying scratch cards with their Daily Mail....

My grandson told me there''s more chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery. He reckons if you win it you''re nailed on to be struck ☺

Anyway, as seen on another thread...

What do we want?

Debt.

When do we want it?

Now.

[Mello Yello 2,280]

Cor....next folk will be sayin'' Alcopops weren''t targeting the underage/younger generation.....They''re strictly for adults that don''t like bitter, stout or lager......or that nasty whisky, voddy, gin an'' stuff.....

[lake district canary 4,531]

Everything is freely available these days, all the things we can get addicted to are there in front of us all the time. It''s a minefield and plays on people''s weaknesses. That is life and we all need to be wise to it. If we are the kind of people that have addictive traits - and most of us

do imo, then one of the ways to get the neural pathways that have come

so entrenched to lessen, is to get ourselves addicted to something that

will lead to better things.   Replace the bad addiction with an

addiction that will over time replace the old harmful one. Get addicted

to helping others, get addicted to work, get addicted to feeling better

about yourself.  As long as you realise you have addictive tendencies,

you can work on that at the same time, but the main thing is to get off

the treadmill of bad habits that is your bad addiction and replace it with

something else.  You can''t just stop an addiction - you have to replace

it with something else.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

What about all those fat Geordies who get addicted to Newcy Browns?

Norwich Bitter didn''t have so many addicts but I reckon it would be popular on here..

[Mello Yello 2,280]

No that''s incorrect in my opinion LDC, not everything is ''freely available'' today.......That''s why those addictive unfortunates'' use any methods, ways or extreme means - to satisfy their addiction and more than often attempt to conceal their addiction.....I think you''re overusing the adjective ''addictive''......

[Mello Yello 2,280]

Or clinically obese Norfolk Lads on this forum, that certainly wouldn''t look outta place amongst the portly porkers at St James''s park.....Do you happen to know of one?......

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

Indeed LDC fighting addiction need primarily be personal thing and the various self-help organisations are the way to go rather than the implementation of attitudes, rules or regulations that twist and turn throughout society in order to salve the weaknesses of the addict. Where is it all supposed to end?

The hand wringing snowflakes who quake in horror at the thought of a LeoVegas logo on the front of wholesome Russell''s yellow shirt because it might lead to addiction amaze me.

Gambling has existed for as long as the oldest profession yet civilisation has managed to survive. Gambling advertising is everywhere today and insistent exhortations to participate in various forms of gambling are common in virtually all kinds of media.

That football grounds are targeted by online gambling sites is obvious as such targeting is the purpose of advertising, whilst the purpose of a football ground is not to provide a safe space where sensitive little flowers can shelter from the horrors of the real world.

I''m more concerned that the LeoVegas site seems quite a poor one by comparison and that their sponsorship of our club might therefore prove to be ephemeral and not particularly lucrative.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]fighting addiction need primarily be personal thing and the various self-help organisations are the way to go rather than the implementation of attitudes, rules or regulations that twist and turn throughout society in order to salve the weaknesses of the addict. [/quote]

It''s not just gambling either. Porn is freely available, drink is cheap in supermarkets, drugs easily available. All stuff that is ultimately destructive if taken to excess. How people who are susceptible to addiction are supposed to resist this stuff is hard to fathom. But then people just don''t seem to realise these things are bad.  Youngsters taking pills seems quite normal to many of them, binge drinking is seen as "normal" and I don''t know about porn, but teenagers who are trying/needing to find out about sex, well the porn sites out there are liable to give a jaundiced view of sex and the reality of relationships.   Society does have a duty to limit advertising and stuff on the internet imo, but society is failing that responsibility - easier to just let things go than try to hold them back. The genie is out of the bottle and it would be difficult to stop it now anyway.  But in the end, if afflicted with a harmful addiction, it is down to the individual to sort themselves out, but they have to want that - thankfully there are people out there and organisations there that will help.

[Greavsy 2,412]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41105949

Says it all really!

Appreciate if someone could make a link, many thanks.

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

Demonstrates my point perfectly.

[Greavsy 2,412]

Howso?

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

I''m not going to go through it all again, the claim was that bookmakers/betting firms had a business model based on getting people addicted. I said they didn''t, that they were imposing more and more safety policies and when asked about the incentive to do so provided a similar link to the one you have showing a multi-million pound fine for Paddy Power. The industry is taking it extremely seriously. When the facial recognition technology is introduced in shops it will help the staff enormously. Harder to police online in some ways but far easier to monitor betting levels (888 hugely missed a trick here clearly). Far from perfect but definitely improving. This fine will serve as another warning and no doubt further restrictions are on the horizon.

I''ve gone through it again..

[Greavsy 2,412]

Working well, even when people ask to be blocked the provider doesn''t do it!

Well self regulated indeed.

Agreed hopefully the fine will give them and they other companies a kick up the backside, and improvements will be seen all round.

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

That''s the problem with self exclusion...impossible to police adequately in shops due to the many thousands of sites and the volume of people. That''s why they''re introducing facial recognition. No excuse on line though, hence the big fine. To be fair it does seem it was an oversight not to crossmatch details with their bingo site, nevertheless, slack practice.

It will continue to improve.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41105949

[Greavsy 2,412]

👍 Tilly.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]I''m not going to go through it all again, the claim was that bookmakers/betting firms had a business model based on getting people addicted. I said they didn''t, that they were imposing more and more safety policies and when asked about the incentive to do so provided a similar link to the one you have showing a multi-million pound fine for Paddy Power. The industry is taking it extremely seriously. When the facial recognition technology is introduced in shops it will help the staff enormously. Harder to police online in some ways but far easier to monitor betting levels (888 hugely missed a trick here clearly). Far from perfect but definitely improving. This fine will serve as another warning and no doubt further restrictions are on the horizon. I''ve gone through it again..[/quote]

 

I think the story on that link, about a large fine imposed on a different online gambling firm for failing to protect vulnerable customers, shows exactly why I''ve decided not to buy a shirt which advertises an online gambling firm.  I made the comment I''d have a similar concern about sponsorship from bookmakers, but I would be open to persuasion that they have a different business model from the online gambling firms, if that ever happened.  Although this story is obviously about an online gambling firm, so doesn''t really change my view about bookmakers one way or the other, I can see the sense in what DE is saying about them.

[Van wink 2,994]

An example of failure to self regulate! The substantial fine may influence the business model and be far more likely to cause change than any altruistic platitudes.

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

🙈 Who imposed the fine?

[Mr Apples 1,317]

"Who imposed the fine?"Hmmm, was it the Salvation Army?Apples

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/news/2017/Gambling-firm-888-to-pay-over-7.8million-for-failing-vulnerable-customers.aspx

Here you go. Read it from the horses mouth, you know the gambling commission, the regulatory body for the gambling industry.

The fine is based on their systems and practices not being robust enough to meet the standards set out by the gambling commission. Some of the problem was technical error, but there''s no excuse for not picking up on people betting the amounts given as examples.

Completely demonstrates just how seriously the industry take customer protection, the lengths that firms must go to to meet the standards set out, not by themselves, but by the regulatory body and the severity of the sanctions for not doing so.

Customer protection is without doubt the hottest priority in the industry currently.

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

[quote user="Mr Apples"]"Who imposed the fine?"Hmmm, was it the Salvation Army?Apples[/quote]

Not sure you''d get £7.8m in one of those collection tins...😉

[Greavsy 2,412]

They may take it seriously, and quite rightly, but they failed to deliver, hence the fine.

[Mr Apples 1,317]

"Not sure you''d get £7.8m in one of those collection tins.."They''ll take it in 260,000 contactless payments.Apples

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

Jesus wept...

I give up.

What point are you making? That it isn''t perfect? That this particular company got it wrong?

The point remains that firms do NOT have a business model based on addiction, they''re bound by regulation to protect their customers, more and more robust practices are being implemented by firms to achieve this and it is the top focus of the industry currently. All of which I have said all along and is amply demonstrated by this report which demonstrates that if there is a failure to meet the standards set out by the GC or even a genuine mistake, then the penalties are, rightly, severe.

This fine will have all other betting firms double checking their processes which can only be a good thing for the customers of the industry as a whole and a huge positive for those concerned by responsible gambling practices.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Not sure if you''re talking about bookmakers or online gambling firms DE.  If you''re meaning bookmakers, I''d defer to your better knowledge, but it''s irrelevant to me as City aren''t sponsored by a bookmaker.

 

If you''re talking about online gambling firms, the fact that they are regulated is irrelevant - cigarette sellers are subject to lots of regulation, it doesn''t change the fact they are selling an addictive product.  It very easy to find plenty of information online confirming their business model relies on getting people addicted to what they''re offering, and that they have systematically changed the way their offering works to make it more addictive in recent years.  Why do you think you always get lots of free spins when you first register but there are restrictions before you can make a withdrawal ?

 

If you want to believe that''s not the case, we''d have to agree to disagree because I looked into it when our new sponsor was announced and found it pretty easy to find info about this.

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

ICF, I can see how the free spins can be interpreted, same with text alerts and the like. I''m sure that the firms would claim that in a busy and competitive market they are merely trying to attract people to their product. After all, it''s not the spinning of reels that is addictive or the fabricated noise of the ball careering around the edge of a roulette wheel, in most cases it''ll be the rush and the risk, maximised by the euphoria when your number drops in.

Now, if it could be proved that these games were rigged to pay a higher percentage early, well, that would be very naughty indeed.

I do get people''s concerns, I know a guy that twenty years ago went from being mortgage free, married and relatively affluent to being divorced, bankrupt and in a bedsit in the space of a few years. Measures are being put in place to try and stop that from happening and it''s unlikely to in betting shops now. It IS harder to prevent online because of the sheer volume of available options but they ARE trying and when they are found to be slack, they get whacked by the GC.

[Making Plans 936]

Would be intersting to know how many "objectors" have an online gambling account. I do, and have had for 15 years, and all I can say is that I''ve never had any problem with them (2 accounts, both reptuable UK Companies) enticing me to gamble more than I can afford. In fact, I rarely receive any communication from them at all and I certainly don''t get bombarded with free bets, special offers etc.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I think in terms of it being addictive, the discussions I found were from executives at some of these companies who were pretty up front that they have applied research into what is habit-forming and addictive for the brain into re-jigging the way their games work.  For example with slots they have changed them so they have a greater volume of small payouts, because that''s more likely to get people addicted to the game than a smaller number of big wins. 

 

Personally I don''t have a gambling account in any shape or form.  I looked at it when Coral had that offer where you could get a City shirt but didn''t like the setup.  Although if someone on here has a problem with a gambling habit (and therefore has a gambling account), I''d have thought that would give them good cause to be an "objector" to our sponsor.

[Van wink 2,994]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/31/gambling-industry-third-party-companies-online-casinos

Yet another example of the way the industry works, casts a dark shadow over any idea that it''s trying to reform itself.

"Carolyn Harris, the Labour MP for Swansea East who has campaigned on gambling reform, said she was unsurprised by the practices. “It just reaffirms my belief that the betting industry has no moral compass and are capable of exploiting the vulnerable in order to obtain the last pound out of them,” she said.