'"Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes board" –consultation results' blog discussion

jamesd

This seems to have a good prospect of success. Thanks for again demonstrating that your consultations are genuine searches for solutions.

nicknameless

Excellent news - well done MSE

meher

‘report a risk’ system

there's someone clever in the forum team :snow_grin
I knew they would faithfully and obediently :snow_grin cave in to our exctravagant and fanciful demands. Thankyou. Serious, it is kept simple, cautious and slow-paced. Clever move.

Hawkeye

I'm very glad to see that common sense has won through.

meher

if you're brave and confident, you could keep it just gaming board instead of match betting - that way the image, that the board projects, would be downsized even further for legal purposes but then there's the risk that the rest of us might wander in and start discussing monopoly teehee

I only suggested that because I'm really against locking any money saving part of the board. If it shuts the newbies out, you lose the chance to exhcnage ideas.

thelawnet

meher wrote: »

I only suggested that because I'm really against locking any money saving part of the board. If it shuts the newbies out, you lose the chance to exhcnage ideas.

It's not about money saving, it's about money making.

JimmyTheWig

jamesd wrote: »

Thanks for again demonstrating that your consultations are genuine searches for solutions.

Hear hear. Many were saying that it was a foregone conclusion that the "consultation" was going to result in shutting the board.

meher

thelawnet wrote: »

It's not about money saving, it's about money making.

making or saving is a matter of perception because money saved is also money made - instead I'll rephrase it as pure money

jamesallen

thelawnet wrote: »

It also would appear to exclude things like '£10 free' on casino/bingo sites. Which is frankly bizarre, although such offers are not without their (moral) hazard, they are much lower risk than say betting £50 at 10-1 and then trying to lay £500 somewhere else.

How is there any risk in exploiting an SUB with a reputable bookie when you've checked liquidity on the exchange already? The matched betting has statistically zero risk, whereas the casino offers don't and they still have the potential problems of not paying etc. and they tend to have massive WR.

thelawnet

jamesallen wrote: »

How is there any risk in exploiting an SUB with a reputable bookie when you've checked liquidity on the exchange already? The matched betting has statistically zero risk, whereas the casino offers don't and they still have the potential problems of not paying etc. and they tend to have massive WR.

I specifically mentioned '£5 free'-type offers. A match + lay has many ways to go wrong, internet problems, time lapse between making the two bets, user error (not understanding the bet rules, not understanding the maths, etc.), and I am sure there are more.

If you get '£5 free for signing up', that's clearly lower risk. That's not to say the match + lay bet is not viable or is a bad idea for everyone, it just seems a bit odd to call the forum 'match betting' when a simple match can require thousands in available funds (a problem for many people, particularly with credit cards charging typically 3% to use in gambling sites), and is not really the kind of 'newbie-friendly' 'no-risk' picture Martin is painting.

It may be that there are not enough '£5 free bet' offers to run a forum, but still that doesn't make 'match betting' risk-free or necessarily newbie-friendly.