APPG report recommends UK ban on 'in-play' betting

[Naffman]

Can't see the difference between pre and in-play betting - it works the same. I wonder if that includes tennis and football?

My experience of the people who criticise betting and gambling is that they don't understand it at a skilled level and see those who need protection from themselves as a higher priority for salvation than those who make tax free profits! For a start they don't understand the difference between betting (a wager based on viable assessment) and gambling (a wager based purely on chance). They probably looked into in-running horses and imagined the fool thinking "that one's going to win … no this one will" and ending up staking bets on multiple runners in the frenzy of the race which as we all know is not the same as longer events such as football etc. Just my guess from discussing betting with friends who are stuck with a "the Bookie always wins" mentality.

You just have to look at Wimbledon/Aussie Open where officials believe courtsiders are match fixing, they really do know f all but know the media will support them

[Cards37]

Can't see the difference between pre and in-play betting - it works the same. I wonder if that includes tennis and football?

My experience of the people who criticise betting and gambling is that they don't understand it at a skilled level and see those who need protection from themselves as a higher priority for salvation than those who make tax free profits! For a start they don't understand the difference between betting (a wager based on viable assessment) and gambling (a wager based purely on chance). They probably looked into in-running horses and imagined the fool thinking "that one's going to win … no this one will" and ending up staking bets on multiple runners in the frenzy of the race which as we all know is not the same as longer events such as football etc. Just my guess from discussing betting with friends who are stuck with a "the Bookie always wins" mentality.

This was my earlier point. The problem is the "all gambling is bad" crowd are usually appeased when the government introduces measures that to joe public look like they are cracking down on gambling, but in reality usually attack the intelligent profitable avenues and encourage people into the -EV avenues that just happen to generate more tax revenue and make more money for the gambling operators.

WItness the Australian experience where despite campaigns for decades against slot machines they remain untouched (because they are guaranteed to generate a ton of revenue for both operators and government) but we have been banned from playing online poker "to protect us from unscrupulous foreign entities" - but which can be beaten and generates no tax revenue.

[aperson]

I don't fully understand when people are critical of successful gamblers and treat them all as evil while treating anyone who is unsuccessful as a victim, particularly when it comes to exchanges. At the end of the day the people who are successful are just taking money off people who are trying to take money off of them, it's not like they are all innocent bystanders. And do people really believe that there is an inherent difference in morality between both sets of people? You better believe an awful lot of failed gamblers wouldn't shed a tear if they had turned out to be successful. When someone asks about my gambling critically I wonder if they would prefer it if I was losing, and also whether they have ever entered the lottery and dreamed of winning. Presumably if they did they would give all the money to charity and work as a nurse or teacher to help wider society. I say this while fully accepting that addiction is a real problem, and that tightening up some aspects of the industry isn't a bad thing.

Some, (many?), people just seem to hate gambling in any form in an irrational way. They apply arguments to it which could just as easily be applied to drinking and yet in my experience very few of these people would ever want to ban alcohol. In fact many of these same people will criticise the closing of pubs.

Regarding the specifics of this it seems the main argument against in play is that it is addictive due to the quick and repetitive nature of the bets placed. But this surely only applies to niche markets like number of corners in the next 5 minutes and the like. You simply can't make this argument when talking about match odds, correct score etc as they take a full 90 minutes to settle. Obviously with caveats about cash out and trading but that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the paper. If you are going to apply this argument why not ban all horse and greyhound betting full stop as they are very regular.

[ANGELS15]

The irony is that many if not most punters are unaware of the facility to bet in-running (on racing at least) on the exchange. It is an opportunity that is greatly underexploited. There was a similar drive in the labour party a couple of years ago to try and ban in-play betting. There was a strong counter argument at the time that there was no evidence that in-play betting was anymore 'damaging' than regular betting.

[aperson]

The irony is that many if not most punters are unaware of the facility to bet in-running (on racing at least) on the exchange. It is an opportunity that is greatly underexploited. There was a similar drive in the labour party a couple of years ago to try and ban in-play betting. There was a strong counter argument at the time that there was no evidence that in-play betting was anymore 'damaging' than regular betting.

That's reassuring. Without trying to get too party political about this it's a strange world to be in where Ian Duncan Smith is against private profit and is handing out morality lessons..