By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Football Index never sat well with me, and I think we have a few on here that have lost a fair bit of cash too. Sad to see, but it was clear to see that F I had a massive potential to jo tits up.
I now this lad's a Budgie and all... on 12:20 - Dec 6 by wkj
Football Index never sat well with me, and I think we have a few on here that have lost a fair bit of cash too. Sad to see, but it was clear to see that F I had a massive potential to jo tits up.
I remember we had a few arguments back in the day with very much polarised views on it and some posters admitting they'd spent quite heavily on it.
I wouldn't touch something like that with a bargepole; I'm quite happy to not gamble loads on the very slim chance of making loads of cash.
I now this lad's a Budgie and all... on 12:38 - Dec 6 by BlueandTruesince82
Whilst I feel for the lad he over exposed himself.
1st law of investing, never over expose or put in money that you can't afford to lose.
That said I do think the gambling commission have a lot to answer for here
See also
If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Spread your investments (in the regular, authorised stock markets). If one goes down you'll only lose a small % of your investment; and companies can't just completely disappear with your dosh.
I now this lad's a Budgie and all... on 12:46 - Dec 6 by Ryorry
See also
If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Spread your investments (in the regular, authorised stock markets). If one goes down you'll only lose a small % of your investment; and companies can't just completely disappear with your dosh.
Yes, 100k in 1 basket was also foolish. Diversity and spread the risk.
I now this lad's a Budgie and all... on 12:29 - Dec 6 by NthQldITFC
Sad, but the risks are obvious to anybody, and people have to take responsibility for the risks they take.
yes and no. If you lose money gambling, then I agree, you take the risk.
When you use a service that has been given a license to operate, it shouldn't have to consider a risk that it might go tits up. If I go to a casino and win but leave my money as chips rather than cashing out, that's not a risk as such.
0
I now this lad's a Budgie and all... on 14:49 - Dec 6 with 1292 views
I now this lad's a Budgie and all... on 12:50 - Dec 6 by phillymark
yes and no. If you lose money gambling, then I agree, you take the risk.
When you use a service that has been given a license to operate, it shouldn't have to consider a risk that it might go tits up. If I go to a casino and win but leave my money as chips rather than cashing out, that's not a risk as such.
Any investment that isn't part of the FSCS £85,000 compensation scheme is a risk not worth taking. So it is still a gamble
1
I now this lad's a Budgie and all... on 20:01 - Dec 6 with 821 views
I now this lad's a Budgie and all... on 12:50 - Dec 6 by phillymark
yes and no. If you lose money gambling, then I agree, you take the risk.
When you use a service that has been given a license to operate, it shouldn't have to consider a risk that it might go tits up. If I go to a casino and win but leave my money as chips rather than cashing out, that's not a risk as such.
I wouldn't personally have assumed that because this government's Gambling Commission had deemed a thing to be viable, that said thing was viable.
# WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE #
I now this lad's a Budgie and all... on 20:01 - Dec 6 by NthQldITFC
I wouldn't personally have assumed that because this government's Gambling Commission had deemed a thing to be viable, that said thing was viable.
It wasn't properly regulated, as "BetIndex did not properly notify the Gambling Commission of the nature of the product in its licence application, nor did it inform the regulator of changes to the product after launch as it was required to."
It was not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority either.
And one glance could tell you that it was a Ponzi scheme in all but name. A nephew of mine lost nearly a couple of thousand - because he borrowed in what he saw was easy money. When he told me about it, I explained that it depended on people being willing to put money into it, to pay those who were taking out. Only most it seemed were not taking anything out, but putting it back in to increase the value of what they held.
One part of me has sympathies with the losers. Many were just using it as a way of enhancing their enjoyments of football. Whereas there were many who saw it as a get rich scheme, that could not lose.
I suspect what this lad has lost is money he had on paper from this scheme (scam) and what he actually put in himself was far lower. However, this will not be the last of its kind, sadly.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
