The credit card analogy you make is interesting, in that that's effectively what they're trying to do here. People are credit checked if they want a credit card, much like you would be means tested if you want to gamble online for any significant amount.

I kind of agree with the credit card thing but if you have money in your bank account which belongs to you, you should be able to spend it however you see fit assuming you are not infringing on anyone else's rights.

I think its beyond ridiculous that someone can be arrogant enough to believe that they know best and should be able to set arbitrary limits on what the masses should or shouldn't spend their own money on.

I read a few articles on this online and scrolled down to the comment sections as I always do because I'm an idiot. The vast majority of people would be supportive of this, yet if you change the vice from gambling to alcohol, those same people would lose their minds.

I'm not trying to downplay the danger of gambling but coercion has always been ineffective for long term change.

You have to understand how these things play out and why they happen in the first place. People lose their money and lives are ruined. Those involved contact regulators or unions whose job it is to help these people. They in turn lobby and we end up in this situation.

We do not live in a libertarian society so governments are always going to try and nanny those people in their society who end up absolutely penniless and broken because they clicked their mouse too often for whatever plethora of reasons they felt compelled to do so. Gambling is not easy for many many people to deal with, particular when they lose which only compounds the problem. Governments, generally, are trying to do the right thing.

The alcohol situation, and the problems that causes, is believe it or not, also a massive issue, but that has it's own complexities. Solutions are difficult to implement in what is a cultural problem.

I understand and I guess I do look at it from a libertarian perspective. What tilts me though is the hypocrisy of it. Statistically a far greater percentage of the population are problem drinkers yet something like this would never in a million years happen with alcohol.

You'd probably need a revolution to fix the alcohol problem, and most people are staunchly anti prohibition. Wrt to online gambling I'd think most people are far more positive towards stringent regulation.

adopting the extremist libertarian position of 'it's their money, the state shouldn't interfere at all' seems morally indefensible here since economic libertarianism, in its justification, effectively requires each individual to be treated as having sufficient agency to be trusted to act in their own interests

a person acting subject to an addiction does not have that level of agency when making decisions about the subject matter of the addiction

it follows that the state has some paternalistic obligations here, but there is a question about what the most effective way to protect gambling addicts is

affordability checks makes sense to me, provided they are enforced at a reasonable level (requiring someone to provide financial details to make a £50 deposit doesn't seem reasonable to me, requiring a check to be performed for £1000 does). hard deposit caps feels like overreaching but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

I think the most important thing about affordability checks is that we're serious about data protection when having them performed. It seems counter-productive if we're requiring sites to perform the checks, only then to be able to send targeted ads/offers based on level of income/assets

This is a small minority of people and there are help groups for them. The government should not be interfering for the 98 or 99% of normal functioning people who don't have addictions and have the capability to act within their own interests.

"The state has paternalistic obligations"?? lol, no it doesn't, the government isn't your dad. Some kids turn to crime and end up in jail, is the answer to that to put ALL kids in jail to protect the public from the small % that are criminals?

I think checks for large deposits of $10k plus would be ok to prevent money laundering. Also, investigation if it is clear that an individual does not have the income or net worth to be depositing large amounts but otherwise they are just interfering with peoples basic human right to spend their money on whatever the hell they want.

I mean, your extremist position has been patent throughout this thread so I don't care to try to convince you otherwise.

No, just the ones with ****ing terrible analogies. The rest we set free in the hope they murder adults that use them.

Defending the rights of the population to be allowed to spend their money however they want is "extremist"? Really?

I think your view that "the government should act like everyone's parents" is the more extremist position.

What difference does it make what analogy i use? It's still about whether they should make a law and apply it to 100% of people for a problem that only 1 or 2% of people have. But thanks for the comment anyway, i hope you get murdered too.

Rather than see it as a the govt parenting people, try to see it as the govt wanting to stay in power or see it as the govt just wanting to do the right thing and be seen as a morally good govt.

If they don't regulate things they get bad press, or pressure from unions, and then protests or even riots, and then they won't get reelected. Sometimes govts even do things just because they're good people and want to do what's right to protect their people, believe it or not.

It was the other guy who said the government should be acting like parents (or paternalistic obligations) as he put it.

Personally, i hope these laws don't come in because it will destroy online poker in the uk. This being a poker forum, i thought there might be a few people on my side but presumably most of the posters in this thread are either not from the uk, don't play online poker (or lose when they do), so don't care if it gets destroyed.

This was my first reaction, but in reality, unless they actually cap the amount possible to be wagered on each UK based account, I don't think it will have the profound impact you think.

For a start, UK players aren't really playing in a segregated playing pool like those in New Jersey, France etc, so any small changes to UK based players will have little effect on for example, the Stars playing pool.

If barriers are put up to prevent excess depositing, the vast majority of semi serious players and above will find ways around this like account transfers, depositing with BTC, VPNing, or playing on untracked apps.

I'm not saying that I'm in favour of gambling reform either but to cite the 'destruction of online poker in the UK' may be overreaching here.

I mean, economically, pure libertarianism is extremist by definition, since it's not possible to adopt a more economically liberal approach than completely free markets.

It's also a fringe view in actuality but this is besides the point.

Paternalism is a question of extent, not whether it's valid in the first place.

wtf?

Good regulation, including the enforcement of responsible gambling, keeps the industry alive, kicking and healthy and keeps the worst of the anti-gambling brigade under control.

Take your blinkers off for a second at take a look around the world where Governments have gone large on online poker (and also the many, many countries where it has never been allowed.)

By comparison, the UK is a gambler's mecca and keeping the industries worst excesses in check is good for the online gambling world.

And btw, paternalistic obligation does simply equate to somebody acting like your parents. It is present throughout civilised society at every level and in an infinite number of guises (in places of education, work, leisure...as health and safety, data protection, food standards etc etc)

So I posted about this previously but I cant seem to find that thread anymore and things have changed a lot since then anyway.

In the UK they are currently pushing hard to change gambling law in a way that is not clear What they will do.

I am aware that come 31st October any vip customers for gambling sites will need to be affordability checked but I am completely unaware how these affordability checks will work.

If I have read correctly Germany have now changed the law so that you can only wager a fixed amount a month. For the purposes of the decisions I have to make Germany is irrelevant as I am based in the UK, However could such things come in over here?

I have statistically verified my results and know that I can make without restrictions been imposed currently make £2500 a month from online poker.

my current job pays £1300 after tax and costs (transport to and from work) my living costs are £1800 a month.

I now face the decision do I quit work outright and just go full time poker or do
I keep a full time job get the bus to and from work each day exposing me to covid and play in the evenings to top up income.

On paper its a no brainer quit work and go for poker full time.

However as I understand it I will be affordability checked if I am playing enough volume to live off. I do not know what checks they do is it just deposit limits? in which case I would not be affected at all is it credit rating and cash savings vs debt? is it assessed based on income and could the fact that you make a consistent profit be taken into account on income?

is future regulation likely to affect it in such a way that making an income from the game would be impossible?

dont quit ya day job pal

do it

Before tax and costs your day job is over 2500 a month?

The UK affordability check is an online pdf file that you'll be emailed and it'll ask you:

1. I make my income as ... (salary/owner/shares/other)
2. My monthly expendable income is £... (there's a calculator you can use. also says they can request supporting documents)
3. Signed by ...

Rest is filled with legal bs that you need to read.

You sign it digitally and submit. As far as I understand each site will have you fill one out for them. Probably will never be cross checked or checked at all unless you have a gambling melt down and sue the operators.

edit:

same as the covid 14-day quarantine when you travel into the UK. Fill out a form that nobody checks when you arrive and maybe gets checked if someone on your flight rings them and says they have been confirmed for covid. Hopefully, but probably not.

I'm not getting into your "plan" but here is the UKGC guide to their new rules. They are seemingly concentrated on gamblers who lose and get tailored promotions. Although there is a chance that some providers use this to make life difficult for winners.

This clearly says HIGH Value Customers. It even clearly says these are the ppl who sites clearly make specific offers to or bonuses, or 'special clubs' - so clearly that is not going to be you

Also.. Im more shocked that your job pays you 1300 a month yet you somehow have outgoings of 1800 a month. That to me actually leaves you in a precarious position if you start losing at poker

I'm in the UK and I've been affordability checked on 2 different sites in the last 2 months (Party and GG) and it was a bit of a pain in the ass getting all the documents together, but it wasn't really much of an issue.

As a bonus, party gave me £1k cash money (instantly withdrawable) after passing the checks.

yeah its not ideal we were doing better but my partner lost their job due to covid when the work dried up.
and i been subsidizing income with online poker I have savings so its not as bad as you would think.

in regards to these forms we fill out I could lie but then that could come back to bite me at a later point. If I was playing full time instead of part time I would rake approx 2k a month.

I think Maybe I just declare my earnings as what I would make from poker and then lower my living expenses to say £1400 or etc.

would I fail on those figures or be okay?

is that small fry? I know plenty of people on here do way better then me from the game and gamble much larger amounts. However 2k a month in rake would still be