Search results

It is not a pitch, it is a description. I have not told anyone in this thread where to play.

Because it is the same argument underneath, and I will put it as plainly as I can since there is a genuine question buried in forty posts of preference. Everything anyone wants from a casino splits into things you can check before you deposit and things you cannot. Games, bonus terms, wagering...

That is a fair hit and I would not argue with it. The mixed product ban removes a product that suited some people in order to reduce harm to others, and the people it suited are entitled to be annoyed about it. I would still take the trade. But I am not the one who lost the offer.

Wrong, and easy to demonstrate wrong, so let me use the thing I actually know about rather than arguing about regulators in the abstract. Bonuses. Since 19 January this year, a UK licensed operator cannot set a wagering requirement above 10x on bonus winnings, and cannot offer you a single...

I would gently suggest that is the wrong thing to optimise for, and I say that having watched this exact reasoning run its course on this forum more than once. You have spent this thread arguing that more hands is more chances. It isn't, and the faster the table the faster that becomes...

Single most useful post in the thread, and it deserves more than a like. A percent on blackjack is enormous. The difference between 99.54% and 98.8% is more than doubling your cost per hand. If a player cannot establish which of those they are sitting at, then every strategy discussion above...

Four times the hands is four times the exposure to a negative edge, which is four times the expected loss per hour. The chances were never the scarce resource. That is not a dig, it's just the arithmetic that makes speed the single most expensive variable in any table game. If you play a 99.4%...

A debit card in your own name and money you already have. Which, read uncharitably, is a conspiracy. Read any other way it's just the list of things that were never a problem in the first place.

The operators pulled them voluntarily in most of those cases, before any rule required it. That's a commercial decision about chargebacks and processing costs dressed up as responsible gambling, not a regulator taking something off you. Though six states have banned them outright for online...

The credit card question has a cleaner answer than the gambling arguments around it usually allow, and it isn't really about gambling at all. A gambling deposit on a credit card is normally processed as a cash advance. That means no interest-free period, interest from the day of the...

Since the tax argument keeps surfacing in pieces, the actual position as it stands today: Machine Games Duty - 5% on the low-stake machines, 20% on most of them where a play costs up to £5, 25% where a single play can cost more than £5. Those bands haven't moved since 2015. Nothing has been...

Those aren't in conflict, though I understand why it reads that way. Like-for-like conventionally strips out closures. It compares the same venues against the same period last year, so on the usual basis the three they shut wouldn't be in the 5% at all. I haven't seen Rank spell out their basis...

Or a registry received a complaint about a site publishing eight hundred people's due diligence files and acted on it without knowing the context. That's the duller explanation and it fits the same facts. I don't know which it was and neither do you.

It's a fair question and it has a partial legal answer as of last Friday. A Berlin court ruled on the 25th in her favour against the Malta Gaming Authority, which had injuncted her over an earlier breach. The judge treated her characterisations of that regulator as expressions of opinion rather...

Operators have recorded every deposit you've ever made since the day accounts existed. That's not a new capability and it isn't created by this. Where you have a point is the second half. The Commission has asked operators for data on the effect of the lowered spending threshold and given them...

Must admit that advice is more important than it sounds. The measure explicitly permits the transactions needed to close operations and refund bettors. So an operator refusing to pay out isn't shielded by the ban - the ban carves out exactly the payment they're refusing to make. @Luciana.29 if...

That's a reasonable reading and it may also just be procedure. En banc is the normal next step and skipping it can count against you. New Jersey has already petitioned the Supreme Court from the other direction, and Justice Alito extended their filing deadline back in July. So the question is...

Legally it turns on one word: swap. A prediction market sells you a contract that settles at $1 if an event happens and $0 if it doesn't, and you trade that contract with other users on an exchange. The exchange takes a fee rather than a margin. Kalshi's position is that these are swaps under...

A £50 test proves the site can pay £50. It tells you nothing about £5,000, because the thresholds that trigger enhanced verification sit well above test amounts. That's not an argument against doing it. It's an argument against concluding much from it passing.

The second study is the uncomfortable one and it's had the least coverage. 29,724 students aged 15 and over were surveyed. 28% of the 15 to 17 year olds had gambled in the previous twelve months, in a country where it's illegal for them to do so at all. For the over-18s it was 39%. The...