The 97% payout on FOBT's is CORRECT. But...

Clive92 will be along shortly, hang on.

82

betlarge, you are spot on they get the effing lot very quickly, far worse than

cutting the pot at poker, disgraceful that the government allow this to happen, the

least the government should do is to tax these monstrous machines massively so that

in theory a lump of the money lost by addicts returns to the public purse.

The point they always miss is that with Sports betting the overround may be higher eg 90% payout but with good judgment & analysis you can push this up to 100% and even above.

So what is better a guaranteed 97% payout on FOBT's or a lower average % payout with sports betting but with the opportunity to raise it through skill/judgment?

I know I would prefer to live in a society where the latter is tolerated and the former banned. 'If you can't win you shouldn't be able to lose'

chelsea what r u on about? have you been on the beer?

Hang on miprix, all will be revealed.

chelsea if you really mean it I will give you my skype address, perhaps I

could be given a private preview as to what is to be revealed, could be exciting.

C'mon Clive auld son, shoot the OP down in flames (if you can)

chelsea, please post who  Clive is, a government spokesperson?

Clive is variably David Williams, Philip Davies, an LBO shop manager, Dirk Vennix, some bloke from SIS and most often then not any of the above with 'rancid' preceding it.

'Near miss' scenarios on FOBTs are illegal. I'd be surprised given the scrutiny the machines are under that nobody has been able to prove that the bookies, machine developers, manufacturers and suppliers are committing a crime on such an epic scale. It would also make all the hundreds of millions of pounds profit derived from the machines the proceeds of crime and therefore recoverable.

Naturally the chap making this claim will have the evidence to back it up?

More a bookies rep. Though he will deny it.

Is your avatar Malcolm Rifkind clive ?

Surprised you don't recognise the avatar.

I get bored of saying it but I don't work for a bookies. Just don't believe it is for others to dictate to me what I can spend my money on. I'd have the same view if you tried to ban Big Macs.

I am confused, FOBTs as most people realise are a legalised racket which should not be

allowed to fleece certain segments of the public as they do, that they are allowed to

go on their merry way without strict and draconian legislation is beyond me.  Any one imo

who defends these machines can only have a financial interest in them being allowed to carry on.

Feb 13, 2013 -- 11:21AM, clive82 wrote:

Clive is variably David Williams, Philip Davies, an LBO shop manager, Dirk Vennix, some bloke from SIS and most often then not any of the above with 'rancid' preceding it.'Near miss' scenarios on FOBTs are illegal. I'd be surprised given the scrutiny the machines are under that nobody has been able to prove that the bookies, machine developers, manufacturers and suppliers are committing a crime on such an epic scale. It would also make all the hundreds of millions of pounds profit derived from the machines the proceeds of crime and therefore recoverable.Naturally the chap making this claim will have the evidence to back it up?

I took it from a submission from Fairer Gambling to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, quoting research compiled by three psychologists in 2005. Namely:

FOBT roulette creates deceptive near-miss scenarios with the ball circling around the spinning wheel – despite the fact that the result had been determined prior to the spin. Research by Sharpe, Blaszczynski, and Walker (2005) has shown that near-misses provoke the same reaction as wins in the brain of problem gamblers, meaning that the repeat bet and multiple bet opportunities, combined with the near-miss frequency and perception, results in players trading-up their total wager amount and ultimately losing more.

The machines in their current format are governed by legislation and regulations set down in 2007 which prohibit the use of 'near miss' scenarios. Research conducted into FOBTs pre 2007 (when they were effectively regulated by gentleman's agreement between ABB and Gaming Board) is not relevant to the machines available today.

If operators are ignoring the regulations and have managed to get that past the independent test labs, then they are taking a huge risk of criminal charges. Given the consequences on a PLCs reputation, should such a huge criminal conspiracy be uncovered I doubt they are doing this. Also the amount of people that would need to be involved in the conspiracy would suggest somebody would have blown the whistle by now if it was true.

clive you seem to know an awful lot about these machines,assuming your facts are right,which of course I'm sure they are. If you don't work for a bookie are you in some way connected with the manufacture/sale of these machines. Sorry about my ignorance of your avatar.

Clive , have you never forgiven your parents for giving you that name and have been angry ever since ???? Suppose you get great pleasure in other people playing these "casino" machines.

salmon 1-100 you are right.

After an hour of play an initial stake of £100 will return less than £1 thus by forcing gamblers to play many times with
high stakes in a format that is addictive type play the Fixed odds machine creates great profits when deployed on the general public.

The answer by the LBO to exchanges fair play attractiveness is to create a totally unfair system to take the publics money.

Ther only answer to prevent the damage done by these machines is to reduce the cash limit amount that can be staked and allow longer cooling off time between spins.

You cant play poker stakes higher than a few quid unless its in a casino so why have bookmakers got exclusive rights
to allow £100 stakes on what are effectivly addictive fruit machines?

I understand & respect Clive82's opinions regarding free choice etc.

It's ultimately down to what our society feels is a fair cost for having this free choice. Let the statistics be measured properly (ie not by the industry) on how much of the money going in these machines is due to problem/compulsive gamblers then take things from there.

Regarding your point on Big Mac's Clive, if it could be proved that more than 1% of Big Mac consumers were actually addicted to the product then IMO the government should step in to legislate either to remove the addictive ingredient or take the product off the shelves. If it is the case that more than 1% of machine players are addicted then IMO the government should step in.

Some people may say that 1% is nothing & it still shouldn't be legislated against. However there does come a cut off point where action has to be taken

bookies arent robbing people at all (i dont work for any of them) ,you have a choice to play them or not,i wish people would stop going on about them,they are here to stay whether you like it or not

It needs realistic regulation.

you have to wonder how someone who claims not to work in or for the industry is as well informed on betting & gaming legislation & regulation as our man clive and you have to wonder even more at the amount of time he devotes to defending the unethical practices of said industry, that he does not work in or for.

i think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he is not entirely truthful (i was going to put full of sh1t but decided that was too crude)

Harry in selecting a username perhaps your imagination didn't stretch beyond your birth certificate, mine did.

I'll repeat again, I don't work in the industry. Nothing to be ashamed of if I did, so I would freely admit it. If you oppose prohibition of alcohol does it mean you work for Carlsberg?

"..well informed on betting & gaming legislation & regulation"

Everything is relative!

A bookmaker wont allow punters to throw wads of money on horses in the event that the punter is a winner and
it effects the profits, the punter also should have protection from losing money they cant afford to lose
so controlling stakes on fixed betting terminals make sense and this will be legislated, not just remours!

these machines help people stay in work otherwise bookies would be closing down everywhere and the tax the govermeant gets back stops youre income tax going up so stop moaning

We're you bullied at school ?

jajabink, your mud slinging and not the real deal

these machines are nothing more than fun,you cant win long term on them,if certain people choose to stick their life savings in so be it

Stakes on FOBTSs are regulated unlike on Betfair.

In fact as there has been no inflationary increase since 2007, stake and prize levels have actually been cut in real terms.

for someone that doesn't work in the industry, you sure know your FOBTs Clive !

Sorry if someone's beat me to it but clive's photo is cyril Stein.

Clive82, the current regulations on stake sizes and prize levels are totally inadequate to protect
ordinary citizens in the form of the general public from losing large amounts of money very quickly
and these siad persons not knowing the great finacial risk involved in playing them.

This will become a matter for further regualtion in the near future and if you would like to place
a bet on it, feel free....

People can lose far larger amounts very quickly on Betfair which isn't even regulated in this country.

You talk about fairness, is it fair for someone to be matched in-running on a horse which is dead? What's the return to player on that scenario?

I wonderes when you would start bringing dead horses into your campaign, what about all the fit and healthy ones
that bookmakers have made billions out of over the decades and for what end, to fleece the public on streets
paved with unemployment with vulgar machines, shame on you...

Dont bite the hand that fed you, namely the sport of horse racing!

I work in the industry and the total ins ( actual cash in the machine daily ) are now around treble the amount taken at the counter , that includes horses , dogs , football , numbers games etc .

LUDDISM AND SUPER GLUE IS A LOVERLY REMEDY FOR THE AFFLICTED .

Making money is not the problem patches, its the manner in which it is done.

ribero1     13 Feb 13 12:53 
Sorry if someone's beat me to it but clive's photo is cyril Stein.


Ah! so we were right about the Laddies connection



.

Why use cash in as an indicator when you are comparing a product with a 3.3% margin to ones with 13-20% profit margins.

It is no secret that the PLCs make half their profits from FOBTs. But so what?

BF - Merely pointing out your selective concern for punter fairness which can be best summarised as anything done by Betfair good, anything done by everyone else bad. I can assure you horseracing doesn't feed me either in the financial or Findus sense.

Are bookmakers expecting the gravy train to run forever or some relistic kickback from affected assosiations

Not saying the machines are good bf fanatic , personally i hate them , just they are now the mainstay of the industry

Nobody is suggesting that FOBTs should be banned, just a little more control on the limits set thats all.

Thank you ribero.
Not sure why clive couldn't tell me himself or why he would have Ladbrokes` ex-CEO as his avatar .

owuldn;t it be ironic that the limits on the machines set to £2 max - the same as they allow any decent punters on the nags, Karma they call it !

There was a guy who used to come into my shop and play the fobs a lot, sometimes he was waiting for the door to open that’s much of problem he had, used to do hundreds a day in, I tried on numerous occasions to get him to self-exclude but he just wouldn’t, to me it was an illness with him, lost his business a few weeks ago and sadly took his own life last week every one who knew him told me he’d spent everything he had on the machines and was in so much debt, not a nice story to tell but these machines are just evil and sure this poor lad won’t be last to go under because of them.

didnt take any notice of the Gamcare stickers you put up in the shop ?

97.02% to be precise

Ronnie Rails did you not think to ban him?

I'd suggest the fact you continued to allow him to gamble despite his clear problems portrays exactly the sterotype that so many on here are keen to present for the whole industry.

bf-fanatic,you have a lot to say ,but the majority of what you say,like many others,is just a personal view,not factual.So you don't like the FOBTs,so have to put up hundreds of replies to make your non-proven comments.
Nobody is ever forced to enter the premises of an LBO,and if entering,nobody is forced to play on the machines.Certain enticements, yes.Which also applies to horse racing,plenty of enticements around.
When playing ,if the player wants to carry on until they have done their pieces,that is their choice,as it is in any form of gambling.
Spins too fast!So what,just will mean players being in shops for longer,if the spins are slower.
Maximum payouts too high!What difference,you can have any bets to win similar amounts on other things.
Players choice!Of course it is,freedom to spend how you desire.
Shops not taking bets because of machines! Nothing whatsoever to do with each other,as companies that don't have LBOs still restrict.Trading is much tighter compared with days of old,as is the case with many businesses today.
   Finally,if you and your colleagues care so much about the community how about giving up your time and volunteering to help in some way those that really need it,like the sick,or elderly.Why so many worries about people that self-inflict,as opposed to the unfortunate souls that have been struck down with illness,or just old age.
   The machines are taxed at a straight 20% on gross profit,which is fair,and also ensures that some of the "suspect money" wagered on them gets taxed,which is of benefit.

I'm not sure of procedure,maybe Ronnie would have to ask higher authority in order to ban him? Fair play for having a word with him sadly no one could see what was going to happen next.

ronnie rails,that scenario existed pre machines.Isolated cases have no bearing on the issue.A family member did his lot at numerous dog tracks over the years,it's nothing new.
Does every pub drinker become an alcoholic?

think Ronnie wud have got the elbow if the bloke was banned

I don't believe the gambling industry would wish to see a person gamble themselves to the point of suicide.

You can base that on basic human compassion if you like, or the fact that you can't make any profit from a corpse. Either way I don't think the example in question is typical of the estimated 500,000 adults who play FOBTs each month.

I don't believe the gambling industry would wish to see a person gamble themselves to the point of suicide.

You can base that on basic human compassion if you like, or the fact that you can't make any profit from a corpse. Either way I don't think the example in question is typical of the estimated 500,000 adults who play FOBTs each month.

Human compassion = 90/1
Can't make profit from  the dead = 1/100

A British bookmaker spokesman reckons "only 4% of the adult population play electronic devices in betting shops". Given that the estimated adult population(15+) is slightly over 50m,that would make the number of player almost 2m,seems quite a long way from the 1/2m you keep quoting Clive.

My figure comes from the omnibus survey into participation in gambling which based on its most recent data for Dec 2012 showed 1% of the adult population played FOBTs in the previous 4 weeks. Taking the ADULT population as approx 50million that is where I got the 500k players EACH MONTH.

A figure for the number of adults who have ever played them I imagine will be higher, but that is not what I quoted.

A simple question for clive82

Do you believe that betting shops whose turnover breakdown is such that more than 50 per cent is attributable to "machines" is complying with the "primary purpose" requirement? That is to say that the primary purpose of the shop is to take racing and sports bets.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Fair enough,still the spokesman for the British betting offices association with his assertion of 4% of the adult population would be correct with the number of approx 2m whether they have played in the last month or not.

Some players only play them once a month.

Pay day.

What Clive doesn't seem to realise is that he should really be arguing that there are FOBT players, and then the ridiculous profits per player might look a little less extortionate. Given his statistics, it would seem the bookmakers are making a very BIG profit from very few FOBT players.

75% of the players don't speak English and wouldn't answer a survey. Especially in London.

Yes

As i've said previously, one product has a margin of 2.7-3.3% the others 10-20% so you would expect the turnover to be higher on a lower margin product.

"bookmakers are making a very BIG profit from very few FOBT players."

Your argument is getting a little confused. I thought yesterday's well thought out position was bookies are targetting the poor!

Why don't you take a moment to have a think, get a clear in your own head what your view is (not the rest of the herd) and then try again.

Disingenuous at best clive (as I'm sure you are aware). One would expect the bookmaker to promote the higher margin (from their perspective) product more aggresively than the lower. Such would be normal, sensible, business practice.

But they don't of course. Indeed they do the reverse.

So there has to be a reason.

What would you think that is Clive?

Oh and by the way you have avoided answering the "primary purpose" question. I did not ask what the where the higher turnover was nor why it should be like that. I asked whether the primary purpose REQUIREMENT  was being satisfied.

Please answer.

"bookmakers are making a very BIG profit from very few FOBT players."

Your argument is getting a little confused. I thought yesterday's well thought out position was bookies are targetting the poor!

Why don't you take a moment to have a think, get a clear in your own head what your view is (not the rest of the herd) and then try again.

You're getting a little confused again, Clive. Not surprising really given the amount of posts you've made today.

Perhaps, you could explain (I suspect not) why these two positions are contrary to each other ?

I'm clear in my position, and by the way I never said it targeted the poor. I have said it targeted the feckless. Not always the same in my mind, but I suspect it is in yours.

clive , in this omnibus survey into participation in gambling there doesn't seem to be any other betting type in betting shops that is played so frequently .
15% play more than 2 times a week .

Paris, surely a business promotes itself in a manner likely to generate the most profit. Whilst betting products provide a higher gross profit margin they are also subject to additional operating costs that gaming machine income unitl now has not.

Maybe given the introduction of MGD the emphasis will now change.

However the way in which a business chooses to promote itself is a commercial matter for them. Incidentally I don't see any mention of FOBTs in today's RP adverts, neither do I ever see them on the endless TV adverts or on the radio. So i'm not quite sure why you think bookies only promote machines and not betting products.

I think my answer was quite clear by the way.

clive has been posting on here 2 or 3 times an hour since mid morning with what would appear to be an hours break for lunch at quarter past one and on previous form will continue into the early evening.

this is the poor saps full time job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
a tragic state of affairs.
i wonder if clive is in fact one person or they work shifts?

If you use the stats you can conclude that 500,000 people play FOBTS every month.
They each lose £250 per month, every month.

What percentage of these have a gambling problem ?.
I'd hazard a guess that it's considerably more than 1%.

Without quoting or repeating any other posts.Traditionally the big bookmakers worked on approx 3% net profit on turnover.Now FOTBs are generating a similar margin but with no chance of any individual EVER becoming a long term winner.

Casinos obviously always had an edge but it was/is possible for a punter to win,short and long term on blackjack against the house and poker either against the house or other individuals using a casinos table.

The individuals using FOTBs have no chance of "winning" against a computer pr-programmed to take all they have to give.

Personally I like the FOBTS. IMO if they didn't exist then all betting shops would be closed as it wouldn't be profitable having them open, now a large majority of the population has the internet and it is much easier to bet online.

All of my phone & internet accounts have been closed due to 'trading decisions' so it suits me well that I can get on anonymously in shops... ;)

They will always take a Yankee.

Feb 13, 2013 -- 11:26PM, Clarky9 wrote:

Personally I like the FOBTS. IMO if they didn't exist then all betting shops would be closed as it wouldn't be profitable having them open, now a large majority of the population has the internet and it is much easier to bet online.All of my phone & internet accounts have been closed due to 'trading decisions' so it suits me well that I can get on anonymously in shops... ;)

If you're doin well you won't be anonymous for long and look forward to 15 minute wait for a £20 win or e/w (if your lucky). But while you wait stick £40 into machines and keep the economy booming, Oh wait ! that's not right i mean join the vulnerable in their financial suicide

clive82 13 Feb 13 13:10 Joined: 06 May 10 | Topic/replies: 540 | Blogger: clive82's blog
Why use cash in as an indicator when you are comparing a product with a 3.3% margin to ones with 13-20% profit margins.

A spurious argument when the 3.3% FOBT's can be played 1000's of time a day as against 24 times with say four (13-20%) horse racing meetings?

Pretty sure which player is more likely to come out penniless if they both spend 4 hours in a shop.....