UKGC announced ban on gambling with credit cards

[pinnit2015]

1 hour ago, Fiekie247 said:

I would only buy a bonus feature on Jammin Jars, if possible, on a lower roller budget like 20 - 40 cents stake, provided its x100 to buy in.

Sweet Bonanza has really stooped low, and you can never win your buy in amount at all these days.

SB also can go 9/10 spins(think it's 10) without a win. 

[ValDes]

1 hour ago, Fiekie247 said:

I would only buy a bonus feature on Jammin Jars, if possible, on a lower roller budget like 20 - 40 cents stake, provided its x100 to buy in.

Sweet Bonanza has really stooped low, and you can never win your buy in amount at all these days.

I would love to have that feature for Jammin Jars too! Totally agree x100 makes sense providing the game variance and winning potential. 

Relax Gaming did it pretty good with Money Train though. Only x80, makes perfect sense and value for money.  

[pinnit2015]

Just now, ValDes said:

I would love to have that feature for Jammin Jars too! Totally agree x100 makes sense providing the game variance and winning potential. 

Relax Gaming did it pretty good with Money Train though. Only x80, makes perfect sense and value for money.  

Forgot about Money Train...i was raging when the buy feature was removed for this one 

[pinnit2015]

Anyone that can still play, if anyone, White Rabbit with bonus buy: try 100 one euro spins and tell us how many times you get the bonus in those 100.

Think i did it once and out of 15 100 quid deposits I only got it once in those - would I, for one shot at the bonus, have been better buying the 100 quid bonus? Absolutely!

Plus...now that I've got the bonus from that buy, am no longer inclined to chase!

[pinnit2015]

4 minutes ago, ValDes said:

I would love to have that feature for Jammin Jars too! Totally agree x100 makes sense providing the game variance and winning potential. 

Relax Gaming did it pretty good with Money Train though. Only x80, makes perfect sense and value for money.  

Given the hit potential of JJ 100 quid for a bonus buy would be one of the best ones about

[ValDes]

5 minutes ago, pinnit2015 said:

Forgot about Money Train...i was raging when the buy feature was removed for this one 

Still available for me  

In fact, had quite an interesting session a few weeks ago buying features on 0.20 only and no base game playing. With a starting balance of 110 USD managed to buy and play probably more than 25 features and man, it was fun indeed! If my greed didn't take the best of me, I could have even walked out with 50 bucks profit but you know me.. always chasing the dream hit.  

[Fiekie247]

36 minutes ago, pinnit2015 said:

SB also can go 9/10 spins(think it's 10) without a win. 

Worse is when that x100 multiplier drops in and it looks like there was a actual winning combination, but the screen passes on so quickly to the next one for you to check it properly. I think they designed it cleverly to give you that impression "Oh I think I had 8 of something" Frustrating.

[cocopop3011]

13 hours ago, ValDes said:

The issue with all these changes is not hidden in the details, it is that because of problem gamblers who are the minority, all other common, non-problematic players who are the majority in my opinion, should suffer all these endless restrictions, limitations, experiments and whatnot... IMHO, Not Fair! 

If I'm wrong and the truth is that the majority of UK players are in fact problematic players, well then, why not abandoning all these halfway steps and take a single, draconian one by banning gambling once and for all and put an end to all that misery for good! Pretty sure the nation will embrace  such ban with open arms as there's countless families out there facing and fighting the battle with problem gambling issues and consequences. 

Out of 'political correctness' will stop here... Not that I don't have a thousand more things to say about it...  

The problem that would occur if the UK was to ban ganmbling is that people will still find a way to gamble on the black market having a knock on effect on crime. Prisons are already full etc etc. I agree there will be families who would welcome such a change but on the flip side it would be such a shame for the genuine people who enjoy a flutter and are in complete control. 

[pinnit2015]

22 minutes ago, cocopop3011 said:

The problem that would occur if the UK was to ban ganmbling is that people will still find a way to gamble on the black market having a knock on effect on crime. Prisons are already full etc etc. I agree there will be families who would welcome such a change but on the flip side it would be such a shame for the genuine people who enjoy a flutter and are in complete control. 

If gambling was banned it'd be like the UKGC voting for their own extinction  

The mainstream media is gambling daft at the moment - I don't know why - political pressure? These 'family' pressure groups that have been set up? - on this note, and i don't mean to sound callous, but there is blatant exploitation of peoples grief (Hiya, BBC) when it comes to these 3/4 stories you'll read about. They are tragic but they are by no means a precursor to the banning of this horrible hobby. 

Does/did gambling/casinos need cleaned up? Of course - there are some awful practices still on the go IMO - like N1 casino sponsoring that moron Roshstein and his fake 50 quid spins and all the other (though not all), streamers who IMO, are bottom feeders, Then there's casinos affiliating with folk who proactively target problem gamblers etc.

The UK, and i have it somewhere, is currently in the middle of somewhat of a mental health crisis and i don't think it's a massive jump to connect the two quite a lot. The rise of mobile gambling, slots in general have all probably contributed to the 'rise' in numbers so to speak. 

The UK used to be famed for the whole 'stiff upper lip', say nothing and get on with things - by Lord, how we've changed as a cultural nation. When things go wrong or you do something wrong? Point the finger - 'it was him'! - and that's exactly what is happening with gambling - when i was on my early 20's i got myself mixed up in things that i shouldn't have, had quite the fall out but it NEVER once occurred to me to point the finger, assign blame to others for my own shortcomings - i sucked it up and dealt with it. 

Ban *****, ban booze, ban ***** incase you get an STD, ban lofts incase you fall through them into the living room - oh, danger, ban dogs incase they eat your last hot dog and you cannae eat for a week and die. 

When Hong Kong was handed back to the Chinese it should have been the UK giving itself to China 

I have zero problems with doing away with gambling ads, stopping the promotion malarky of those joke streamers/targeting kids etc - same way as i agreed with the ban of smokes on the Telly. But that's pretty much where i stop. 

As to the responsibility of casinos to identify problem gamblers - 2 minds about this. I think there is a role but it's not been that well put into practice.

Heard someone compare casinos, in general, to payday loan companies: an MP. Sweet baby Jesus. 

[pinnit2015]

Here's a thought - folk go on about the UKGC looking at banning pending/long withdrawals. I don't know any research but....

Whilst that is fine for non problem gamblers - cool, get my money quick, buy my Nintendo Switch without an hour of getting it etc (actually just finished playing MarioKart)

I have wondered for a while whether the GC's view is that the opposite of that - If I'm an addict, one of the worst things possibly? that can happen is that i'm paid in nanosecords. That money's going back in somewhere as soon as it hits my PP/VISA etc. Escalates the issue, loses even more grip on the value of money with in's and out's of accounts. Curious to see whether the GC would go 'Hold on, allow folk to lock, but the Pending Period can stay' as it will take the momentum off constant deposits - one they're out with a pending withdrawal that they can't access, no more play. Basically once they withdrew, you couldn't play it back but at the same time it's be a number of days before you got the cash.

Just thinking but there is a tad of sense in that. 

What it won't do - treating the symptom, not the cause etc, is address the issue - which is, that they need professional help. 

However, back to the previous post, you are basically handicapping 'normal' punters because of the actions of a minority (and they are a minority, despite the Daily Mail's musings)

 

[cocopop3011]

4 hours ago, pinnit2015 said:

Here's a thought - folk go on about the UKGC looking at banning pending/long withdrawals. I don't know any research but....

Whilst that is fine for non problem gamblers - cool, get my money quick, buy my Nintendo Switch without an hour of getting it etc (actually just finished playing MarioKart)

I have wondered for a while whether the GC's View is that the opposite of that - If I'm an addict, one of the worst things possibly? that can happen is that i'm paid in nanosecords. That money's going back in somewhere as soon as it hits my PP/VISA etc. Escalates the issue, loses even more grip on the value of money with in's and out's of accounts. Curious to see whether the GC would go 'Hold on, allow folk to lock, but the Pending Period can stay' as it will take the momentum off constant deposits - one they're out with a pending withdrawal that they can't access, no more play. Basically once they withdrew, you couldn't play it back but at the same time it's be a number of days before you got the cash.

Just thinking but there is a tad of sense in that. 

What it won't do - treating the symptom, not the cause etc, is address the issue - which is, that they need professional help. 

However, back to the previous post, you are basically handicapping 'normal' punters because of the actions of a minority (and they are a minority, despite the Daily Mail's musings)

 

Does anyone ever reall believe what the Daily Mail write! It's swings and roundabouts. There's absolutel no way the UKGC can please everyone.. While the UK will move towards making gambling safer it will be able to please everyone. What happens in the coming months or years I just think there'll be pros and cons to all of it. 

Back to the original topic of credit cards though I've been thinking more of it. What will the UK actually be left with? Visa? You can even transfer funds from a credit card to a bank these days! A credit card could be used with Paysafecard so that'll have to be removed., or am I woring in thinking that?

[pinnit2015]

36 minutes ago, cocopop3011 said:

Does anyone ever reall believe what the Daily Mail write! It's swings and roundabouts. There's absolutel no way the UKGC can please everyone.. While the UK will move towards making gambling safer it will be able to please everyone. What happens in the coming months or years I just think there'll be pros and cons to all of it. 

Back to the original topic of credit cards though I've been thinking more of it. What will the UK actually be left with? Visa? You can even transfer funds from a credit card to a bank these days! A credit card could be used with Paysafecard so that'll have to be removed., or am I woring in thinking that?

It's superficial to say the least - i can transfer my CC limit to my bank account and it's available right way, as is funding certain wallets etc, as it nipping to the ATM, lifting cash and buying a pay safe voucher etc. Either the wallet providers will have to remove it or casinos's will just have to ban those as well.

But i doubt the GC even know what a web wallet is, so.....

I'll stick with the classical theory of utilitarianism and run with the greatest good for the greatest number, which is non addicts 

My issue with the CC is that, in the grand scheme of things, it achieves a minimal impact

Casino's are reducing RTP - RTP lowering=less play time=more deposits - now, that can't be good for a 'safe' gambling environment; so why don't they up the minimum allowed RTP of 90% to 99.9%  

[Flatzem]

3 minutes ago, pinnit2015 said:

It's superficial to say the least - i can transfer my CC limit to my bank account and it's available right way, as is funding certain wallets etc, as it nipping to the ATM, lifting cash and buying a pay safe voucher etc. Either the wallet providers will have to remove it or casinos's will just have to ban those as well. 

But i doubt the GC even know what a web wallet is, so..... 

I'll stick with the classical theory of utilitarianism and run with the greatest good for the greatest number, which is non addicts 

My issue with the CC is that, in the grand scheme of things, it achieves a minimal impact

Casino's are reducing RTP - RTP lowering=less play time=more deposits - now, that can't be good for a 'safe' gambling environment; so why don't they up the minimum allowed RTP of 90% to 99.9%   

there would be less profit for the casinos and then less in taxes paid by the casino. so the government would lose.

[pinnit2015]

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/News/gambling-commission-releases-guidance-to-help-consumers-limit-gambling-related-content-on-twitter

Yeah, that's really getting at the issue.

They'd be better off whacking the casino's with double digit fines for those who endorse a moron dressed as a cowboy playing DOA 

[pinnit2015]

5 minutes ago, Flatzem said:

there would be less profit for the casinos and then less in taxes paid by the casino. so the government would lose.

They need to be wary of the hand that feeds them - after all, they get a huge chuck of their income from fees etc

[pinnit2015]

Clarification today actually

 

[pinnit2015]

I did chuckle at this response from the CC consultation.

Really? I pay 3 quid to deposit 100 quid and it 'forced' me to go on a Bonanza bonus chasing session as i sought to recover that 3 quid?

Who'd have known that the 3 quid fee led me to doing 100 quid spins on Superflip

What nonsense

 

[pinnit2015]

Yeah, and it can cost me just slightly less for buying a car that i really cannot afford, or the 10 holidays i've stuck on it

 

[pinnit2015]

But some, at least, have common sense.

 

[cocopop3011]

2 minutes ago, pinnit2015 said:

Yeah, and it can cost me just slightly less for buying a car that i really cannot afford, or the 10 holidays i've stuck on it

 

Exactly!! I’ve said from the start I am in favour of a cc ban on gambling sites but I bet there are bigger debts incurred on credit cards than gambling like the ones you mentioned and just shopping in general! 

[pinnit2015]

A punchy read https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-gambling-businesses/Compliance/consultation-responses-2020/Changes-to-licence-conditions-and-codes-of-practice-on-the-use-of-credit-cards-for-gambling.aspx

[pinnit2015]

Just now, cocopop3011 said:

Exactly!! I’ve said from the start I am in favour of a cc ban on gambling sites but I bet there are bigger debts incurred on credit cards than gambling like the ones you mentioned and just shopping in general! 

All i can say is that i wish they'd banned them in Glasgow's 'Gentlemen Establishment' clubs

I'd be rich. 

Damn those alluring women. 

[cocopop3011]

2 minutes ago, pinnit2015 said:

A punchy read https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-gambling-businesses/Compliance/consultation-responses-2020/Changes-to-licence-conditions-and-codes-of-practice-on-the-use-of-credit-cards-for-gambling.aspx

I’ll take a read of that after the school run. But I actually had an email off my credit card company (which I’ve never used for gambling btw ) saying UK laws are changing and anyone only making minimum payments can now have their accounts suspended (if reviewed) and be placed on a repayment plan whereby they’d have to pay a fixed payment instead to bring down their balance and avoid the risk of long term debt. So effectively I think the UK as a whole are just cracking down on the use of credit cards. Too little too late I think. What happens to the people who can’t afford the new fixed payment? Sending them even further into debt when they were comfortably paying the minimum anyway

[pinnit2015]

2 minutes ago, cocopop3011 said:

I’ll take a read of that after the school run. But I actually had an email off my credit card company (which I’ve never used for gambling btw ) saying UK laws are changing and anyone only making minimum payments can now have their accounts suspended (if reviewed) and be placed on a repayment plan whereby they’d have to pay a fixed payment instead to bring down their balance and avoid the risk of long term debt. So effectively I think the UK as a whole are just cracking down on the use of credit cards. Too little too late I think. What happens to the people who can’t afford the new fixed payment? Sending them even further into debt when they were comfortably paying the minimum anyway

Yeah, it's a new initiative - known as 'persistent debt'.....

[ValDes]

9 minutes ago, pinnit2015 said:

But some, at least, have common sense.

 

Single voice of common sense among the vast ocean of wild populism...