What If Bookmakers Had To Publish Their Win Rate Against Individual Customers?

Expanded transparency metrics SharpEddie proposes would be devastating:

"Your Chiefs bets: -€340 (ROI: -23.4%)"
"Your Sunday betting: -€2,100 (ROI: -15.8%)"
"Your bets after 10pm: -€1,470 (ROI: -31.2%)"

Impossible to ignore patterns.
 
The time-of-day metric would be brutal for a lot of people.

Show them they're losing twice as much on late-night bets.
 
my late night betting would look horrible... probably down like 5k just on 2am bets... seeing that would hurt but honestly might help... need something to shock me into better habits...
 
"Your bets placed in pubs: -£1,200"

F**k that would sting.
 
UK considered regulation requiring monthly loss statements emailed to customers.

Industry killed it. Claimed "customer harassment."

Real reason: transparent loss reporting reduces engagement.
 
How is showing someone their actual performance "harassment"?

That's like a bank saying checking account balances is harassment.
 
Comparison to other industries:

Investment firms: Must show returns, fees, comparative performance
Banks: Must show interest rates, fees, account balances
Credit cards: Must show APR, minimum payments, total interest

Betting: No performance disclosure required

Anomaly suggesting regulatory capture.
 
Not accident. Betting industry regulatory influence significant.

Transparency requirements exist for consumer protection.

Books successfully argue betting is "entertainment" not financial product.

Different regulatory framework.
 
Princess because if it was treated like a financial product, it would have to meet fiduciary standards.

Books would have to act in customer interest.

That would destroy the business model.
 
The "entertainment" classification is genius regulatory arbitrage.

Lets them avoid consumer protection requirements.
 
Correct.

Casino gambling: "entertainment"
Investment trading: "financial product"

Functionally similar. Legally distinct.

Regulatory framework determines disclosure requirements.
 
So they hide behind "entertainment" to avoid telling us we're losing?

That's proper shady innit.
 
Yes. "Entertainment" classification shields from transparency requirements.

Intentional regulatory strategy.
 
Back to the hypothetical: if this WAS required, would it actually change behavior long-term?

Or would people ignore it after the initial shock?
 
Initial shock would cause 15-25% to quit like Oli said.

Remaining bettors would either:
1. Already winning (don't care, validates them)
2. Accept losses as entertainment cost (rationalize)
3. Denial/ignore the data

Diminishing returns after initial intervention.
 
Back
Top
GOALLLL!
Odds