Gambler Sues British Bookmaker For Taking His Bets
A 28-year-old greyhound trainer is suing British bookmaking company William Hill after he lost over $4 million gambling in a six-month period. Graham Calvert is claiming that, despite his informing the book he wished to be self-excluded from further gambling activities, the company continued taking his bets, to the point where he lost his marriage, his business, and his occupational license as consequences.
Calvert claimed William Hill was responsible because he recognized his gambling problem, and used the self-exclusion provision of the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, which requires licensed casinos and bookmakers to honor gamblers' requests to not allow them to play for a minimum of six months. However, according to Calvert, William Hill continued to accept his wagers.
During the period Calvert says he had excluded himself, he placed bets totalling almost $7 million, losing over $4 miilion, including a $700,000 bet on the Ryder Cup, mistakenly choosing the U.S. to win.
Calvert claims that, by trying to use the self-exclusion clause, he was admitting he had a problem and absolving himself of responsibility.
"For whatever reason, William Hill failed to operate its self-exclusion policy, with disastrous consequences for our client despite knowing that he had a gambling problem and we argue that they should be held responsible for that. It goes to the issue of how bookmakers treat people who have gambling problems via their self-exclusion policy," said Calvert's attorney, Peter Hornsey.
William Hill stated only that it would strenuously contest the charge against it. The book has over 2000 locations throughout Great Britain.
While clearly the methods of applying the self-exclusion policy need to be revisited and perhaps revised, to hold casinos and gambling establishments to a standard by which no problem gambler, despite whatever desperate and ingenious actions he may employ, may slip through the net is not realistic. If it is found that William Hill was lax, then perhaps a probationary period during which inspections to assure tighter controls occur might be necessary.
However, self-exclusion should not absolve the gambler. This would allow bettors to place themselves on the list, then attempt to gamble by any means of which they could conceive, knowing they could win, but losses would not be their problem. Further, in the case of Calvert, it seems a job at the greyhound track might not be the best environment for a problem gambler. At the end of the day, gamblers who fear they have a problem are as responsible to honestly try to address their problem as books and casinos are to try to help them avoid temptation.
