Will Hill Issue Profit Warning

[TheGameHunter]

http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse...start/2051523/

Can't say I'm surprised

[TheGooner]

Some very interesting quotes in there

But the performance has been so weak that the firm have revised overall operating profit for the year to be between £260-280 million, which if coming in at the lower estimate, would be £30m less than 2015.

So it's still a reasonable profit ...

gross win margins for William Hill online are down at 6.2 per cent, 1.9 per cent lower than expected.

So they aim for an 8% margin, (pricing at 1.91 / 1.91?), and are only getting 6.2, interesting to see the amount of variance even at turnover of 2.3 billion pounds!

In addition, Hills reported an increase in the number of time-outs and automatic self-exclusions, which has reduced players, particularly in the gaming area. Such measures have been introduced to reduce the time a punter can spend gambling, both online and on gaming machines.

This is a good thing ... but I read the inference that it's bad for profits

The firm estimate that if these trends continue online profits will reduce by £20 to £25m in 2016.

Within 3 paragraphs the short fall has dropped from £30m to £20-25m ...

[RacingJim]

Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them, or invest in their shares.

[Doolally]

I suspect most of the betting companies will be experiencing the Cheltenham effect too and will post results along the same lines. However, as Gooner correctly notes, it's still a decent profit.

Interesting that more people are self-excluding though. I wonder if people are just discovering that it's something they can do or is something else pushing people to do this?

[Renee]

I suspect most of the betting companies will be experiencing the Cheltenham effect too and will post results along the same lines. However, as Gooner correctly notes, it's still a decent profit.

Interesting that more people are self-excluding though. I wonder if people are just discovering that it's something they can do or is something else pushing people to do this?

We are noticing the same thing in casino for UK players because of the requirement from the UKGC to have an option inside the software for them to self exclude. Lots of players use it when they are having a bad run for example, not knowing that they can't reverse it for at least 6 months, then come back the next day and say oh can you reopen my account, and the answer is no. So those players would go elsewhere.

I can't say whether that's the case here but it could be I suppose.

[thebookiesoffers]

as Gooner correctly notes, it's still a decent profit.

Trouble is it is below what the company forecast so shareholders wont be getting the returns they thought. Hence why 11% got wiped off the companies value today (may invest some money in them in the morning tbh)

Within 3 paragraphs the short fall has dropped from £30m to £20-25m ...

They do explain that the £30m is the worse end of the spectrum, which obviously could happen, 20-25 is forecast

[RacingJim]

We are noticing the same thing in casino for UK players because of the requirement from the UKGC to have an option inside the software for them to self exclude. Lots of players use it when they are having a bad run for example, not knowing that they can't reverse it for at least 6 months, then come back the next day and say oh can you reopen my account, and the answer is no. So those players would go elsewhere.

I can't say whether that's the case here but it could be I suppose.

I've noticed on betfair you can self-exclude for different periods of time, think the options are 7, 14 and 30 days. not 100% on the amounts, but there's no 6 months option and as you can see the periods are quite short.

[Renee]

Are those not "cooling off" periods?
As per UKGC the min "self exclusion" time is 6 months.

[universal4]

I have to agree with Gooner, that the numbers they are estimating although down are still decent and actually a little better than I would have suspected.

And it doesn't surprise me that if the "cooling off" period is supposed to be 6 months that some operators allow for shorter times, until the UKGC finds out at least.

I wonder if a portion of their downturn could in fact be attributed to that.

Rick
Universal4

[Renee]

I was under the impression that this had to be checked and approved inside the software by the UKGC so I'm assuming that it is just a misunderstanding and that the 7, 14 and 30 days seen by RacingJim are actually cooling off and not self exclusion.

So to further explain:
7, 14 and 30 days = cooling off period
6+ months = self exclusion

[universal4]

That makes much more sense, thanks Renee,

Rick
Universal4

[thebookiesoffers]

I was under the impression that this had to be checked and approved inside the software by the UKGC so I'm assuming that it is just a misunderstanding and that the 7, 14 and 30 days seen by RacingJim are actually cooling off and not self exclusion.

So to further explain:
7, 14 and 30 days = cooling off period
6+ months = self exclusion

quite correct, 2 completely different things

Betfair obviously offer both options as well

[RacingJim]

I was under the impression that this had to be checked and approved inside the software by the UKGC so I'm assuming that it is just a misunderstanding and that the 7, 14 and 30 days seen by RacingJim are actually cooling off and not self exclusion.

So to further explain:
7, 14 and 30 days = cooling off period
6+ months = self exclusion

Yeh I think you're correct. It seems like the cooling off period could be worth doing for most casinos if it's allowed, as from what I've been reading it seems like a lot of places it's just a 6-month thing.

I noticed at 888 Casino they seem to offer just the 6 months self-exclusion, I didn't see any options for cooling-off. Once a person has self-excluded for 6 months then it's a LONG time and you're probably gona lose that customer. Whereas 7, 14, 30 days gives people a chance to come back within a reasonable timescale. Interesting that I didn't see any obvious link to a 6 month self-exclusion at Betfair though, I'll have another look later.

[Chago]

Wait for the EURO 2016, 2016 will be better than 2015.

[thebookiesoffers]

Wait for the EURO 2016, 2016 will be better than 2015.

depends on what happens though

[Renee]

Yeh I think you're correct. It seems like the cooling off period could be worth doing for most casinos if it's allowed, as from what I've been reading it seems like a lot of places it's just a 6-month thing.

I noticed at 888 Casino they seem to offer just the 6 months self-exclusion, I didn't see any options for cooling-off. Once a person has self-excluded for 6 months then it's a LONG time and you're probably gona lose that customer. Whereas 7, 14, 30 days gives people a chance to come back within a reasonable timescale. Interesting that I didn't see any obvious link to a 6 month self-exclusion at Betfair though, I'll have another look later.

As I understand, it is mandatory to have both but I could be wrong.
I'm not sure why a company wouldn't choose to have both.

[RacingJim]

As I understand, it is mandatory to have both but I could be wrong.
I'm not sure why a company wouldn't choose to have both.

At the time I wrote it, I had actually 'cooled off' on Betfair myself as I was going on the casino too much! So I couldn't go in to check, but now I have, I see they have self-exclusion also as an option along with the cooling off period.

I would think it's massively beneficial for all casinos to offer both options as I'd think many users might take the lighter option to start with if both are available.

[golfbettingsystem]

Results pretty much as expected http://www.igamingbusiness.com/news/...h-start-online

[Celebrationbird]

depends on what happens though

That will depend on lots of things m8!