Guy Harding

Good summary here by @shergar81 Another blow for racing: somewhere between £15m and £57m less funding on the way, thanks to the MGD rise. And who benefits? •AGCs, as betting shops close •The black market, as the regulated market becomes less competitive •Online casino, as customers keep migrating from racing to gaming Once shop closures are counted, this may raise far less than the Treasury expects, possibly less net tax overall. Campaigners sold higher MGD as tackling harm. The likely outcomes above suggest harm goes up, not down. racingpost.com/news/industry…

Strong reporting from @ByRobDavies on Anjouan, and worth reading for anyone who still treats the UK black market as an industry talking point. Nearly 1,500 licensees. Sites marketed as "not on GamStop" to people who have actively excluded themselves. One accepting UK deposits, then calling and emailing over a hundred times to get the customer betting again. That demand is real and growing. Where it goes next is a policy choice. The advertising ban proposed in the Lords would hand these operators a further competitive advantage over the ones who apply GamStop, verify age and pay tax.

This letter to the Chancellor on a Category B MGD rise misses key facts: • It doesn't protect bingo. Bingo halls rely on these machines, and Rank says a third of its venues could close. 
• Betting shops close first and arcades survive. The Guardian reached the same conclusion. • Revenue is disputed: EY's modelling shows a net loss to the Treasury once closures are counted. 
• There's no evidence higher duty reduces harm. The 40% online rate hasn't curbed online casino. 
• And not a word on racing, which would lose £92m a year.

The Gambling Commission's £5m Grosvenor settlement contains a detail every punter should read. One customer won ~£260k in a short period, then lost ~£250k over 12 days. On those numbers he's still around £10k up. The GC lists this as a failure. Its finding: staff let customers' wealth or "winning position" justify light-touch safer gambling checks. Being a winner, in other words, is no reason to ease off. Now put that next to Vivaro. There the GC said winnings from another bookmaker can't be accepted as source of funds without further checks. So a winning punter's money is suspect when he deposits it. And when he loses it back, that's treated as harm, even if he's still ahead. Win, and you're an AML risk. Lose your winnings back, and you're a safer gambling case. No one has banned winners. But they’ve built a system where serving one is a compliance liability on both counts. Then we wonder why bookmakers restrict winning accounts, and why serious punters drift to the black market.