Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
12 Sep 16
20:34
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 12
.
Show More
Faceless tw@ts running big firms, ABB, Gambling Commission are responsible for this evil.
Should be banned or at the very least limited to £1. a go.
Should be banned or at the very least limited to £1. a go.
average loss 6.75 quid max steak 100 squids
payout 97.3%
maths doesnt add up ......
payout 97.3%
maths doesnt add up ......
Why do half the threads on here point out what programmes are on tele ? I've hidden mine in the boot of my car since Friday cos I aint got no licence and I've had a 'tip off' .
I'm absolutely dying to go get it and plug it in but I fear that would be the catalyst for an episode of Sod's Law
I'm absolutely dying to go get it and plug it in but I fear that would be the catalyst for an episode of Sod's Law
ABB manipulate figures.
There is every chance the machines are a bit not as described too, it would be impossible to actually establish.
Reynard, watch it on your computer later.
There is every chance the machines are a bit not as described too, it would be impossible to actually establish.
Reynard, watch it on your computer later.
The main focus of the big firms (and the ABB) is to get people onto them.
They won't take big bets over the counter and make all their money on them
They won't take big bets over the counter and make all their money on them
I gave a talk about these to a load of councillors a couple of years ago.
I know some of the people on this programme.
They have no chance against the govt and GC.
They have no chance against the govt and GC.
Should up the limit to 20 machines per shop.
That would make it harder for the mugs as there would be fewer shops, your addiction would be more public and it would be safer for staff as there would be less single manning.
At the end of the day, nobody is forcing them.
That would make it harder for the mugs as there would be fewer shops, your addiction would be more public and it would be safer for staff as there would be less single manning.
At the end of the day, nobody is forcing them.
STUDYFORM - I have received a very official looking letter stating that I'm prohibited from viewing TV programmes through a computor 
The shops are in high streets now, because of the machines. This makes players more anonymous.
They're not mugs bongo. Think yourself lucky you aren't hooked.
I have seen otherwise well adjusted, intelligent, not really heavy gamblers get into mega trouble over FOBTs, known one and one attempted suicide.
If you're not being watched Reynard, how can anyone know you're watching your TV, Reynard?
They're not mugs bongo. Think yourself lucky you aren't hooked.
I have seen otherwise well adjusted, intelligent, not really heavy gamblers get into mega trouble over FOBTs, known one and one attempted suicide.
If you're not being watched Reynard, how can anyone know you're watching your TV, Reynard?
Its ok STUDYFORM , they got an in-running thread on the horse racing forum 
You now need a licence to watch TV on your computer, whether or not it's "live" TV. The government already has the regulatory powers to force your internet provider to tell them what you've done online.
The fact that they claim not to have done so doesn't mean that they haven't or won't.
The fact that they claim not to have done so doesn't mean that they haven't or won't.
ffs ! Its bad enuff missing Emmerdale . The lack of educational stimulants provided by terrestrial TV channels is killing me ! I'm currently living on a diet of Talksport and Capital FM 
That large numbers of small shops exist is only viable because of the 4 machines rule, a product of the govt and the GC.
So late at night you might have 5 players in 5 different shops all playing solo, with a single member of staff present. Exaggeration but you get the picture.
Let competition eliminate the smaller shops, then you'd have 5 people playing in the same shop, possibly fewer as nobody likes losing in front of people they know.
Suicide rates are generally low. However being male, from the north-east, single, jobless and aged 45-60 is the biggest risk group. FOBTs do not cause suicide attempts. People cause suicide attempts. And yes, if you play a FOBT then you are a mug. The only change the GC should make is to ensure you have a tally of your losses ( like betfair P&L ) and a sign above them telling you that you will lose 3% long term, and that if you play long term then you are a mug.
And yes, I have been to GA, and I've listened to the suicide attempt stories and absolutely all of them said it was not the fault of the betting shops, it was their own fault and there was nobody to blame but themselves.
So late at night you might have 5 players in 5 different shops all playing solo, with a single member of staff present. Exaggeration but you get the picture.
Let competition eliminate the smaller shops, then you'd have 5 people playing in the same shop, possibly fewer as nobody likes losing in front of people they know.
Suicide rates are generally low. However being male, from the north-east, single, jobless and aged 45-60 is the biggest risk group. FOBTs do not cause suicide attempts. People cause suicide attempts. And yes, if you play a FOBT then you are a mug. The only change the GC should make is to ensure you have a tally of your losses ( like betfair P&L ) and a sign above them telling you that you will lose 3% long term, and that if you play long term then you are a mug.
And yes, I have been to GA, and I've listened to the suicide attempt stories and absolutely all of them said it was not the fault of the betting shops, it was their own fault and there was nobody to blame but themselves.
Sep 12, 2016 -- 9:12PM, Reynard wrote:
ffs ! Its bad enuff missing Emmerdale . The lack of educational stimulants provided by terrestrial TV channels is killing me ! I'm currently living on a diet of Talksport and Capital FM
I thought the licence was for BBC programs online only. Should be ok with any others.
The Wireless Telegraphy Act (1948) (as amended) clearly states that the licence is to operate the equipment.
How many people are sat in a bar, on a train, in a waiting room, at home playing the exact same games on their phone where there are no stake limits?
I think there's a real debate to be had about gambling addiction but this programme was shockingly poor. I have sympathy for Tony Franklin who does seem to have a problem controlling his addiction but otherwise it was a puff piece for the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. I'm not telling anyone what to think but you may want to google its owner, his relationship with the casino industry, the payment he requested from the betting firms and even his own submission to the GC about regulation on the high streets.
Then there's the owner of the Hippodrome Casino in the programme.
Again, not here to preach just advising people to maybe investigate further to understand possible motivations.
I think there's a real debate to be had about gambling addiction but this programme was shockingly poor. I have sympathy for Tony Franklin who does seem to have a problem controlling his addiction but otherwise it was a puff piece for the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. I'm not telling anyone what to think but you may want to google its owner, his relationship with the casino industry, the payment he requested from the betting firms and even his own submission to the GC about regulation on the high streets.
Then there's the owner of the Hippodrome Casino in the programme.
Again, not here to preach just advising people to maybe investigate further to understand possible motivations.
Porcupine, the benefit of FOBTs for the industry is that they are CASH. Despite what the GC pretends to do about money laundering, the big firms rely on it.
I had an independent betting shop. The machines made nothing for me as it happens (are they geared more towards the big firms, no-one can prove they're not). I could go on for hours about why they're wrong.
I also had dealings with the bloke who invented them, AND had quite a bit to do with the campaign for fairer gambling.
Of cause it's their own fault bongo, but they're being subliminally driven to it.
I've worked in the betting industry since I was 18. In betting shops, casinos, on course, and at all levels.
Here and abroad. I've also gambled a lot myself, often to a point of problems. Also to GA as it happens
I think it's fair to say there isn't much I don't know or haven't seen in gambling.
Without any doubt FOBTs are the most damaging, unscrupulous, nasty thing to have happened to the betting industry and to society where gambling is concerned, ever.
Together with the greed of the people who run Horse racing and the greed of SIS, the creation of the completely unnecessary and clueless Gambling Commission, they have slaughtered betting shops as community venues and although there was always problem gambling, it was a fraction of the problem it is now.
bongo,
The suicide and near suicide I know of were both of respectable, well waged, from the South East, otherwise happy people.
Drunks, junkies, overeaters, anorexics, smokers and others all do it to themselves, but they can't help it, perhaps you think they have nobody to blame but themselves either.
I have seen old blokes who used to do a 10p yankee every day loading note after note into them. they are addictive and should be banned.
I had an independent betting shop. The machines made nothing for me as it happens (are they geared more towards the big firms, no-one can prove they're not). I could go on for hours about why they're wrong.
I also had dealings with the bloke who invented them, AND had quite a bit to do with the campaign for fairer gambling.
Of cause it's their own fault bongo, but they're being subliminally driven to it.
I've worked in the betting industry since I was 18. In betting shops, casinos, on course, and at all levels.
Here and abroad. I've also gambled a lot myself, often to a point of problems. Also to GA as it happens
I think it's fair to say there isn't much I don't know or haven't seen in gambling.
Without any doubt FOBTs are the most damaging, unscrupulous, nasty thing to have happened to the betting industry and to society where gambling is concerned, ever.
Together with the greed of the people who run Horse racing and the greed of SIS, the creation of the completely unnecessary and clueless Gambling Commission, they have slaughtered betting shops as community venues and although there was always problem gambling, it was a fraction of the problem it is now.
bongo,
The suicide and near suicide I know of were both of respectable, well waged, from the South East, otherwise happy people.
Drunks, junkies, overeaters, anorexics, smokers and others all do it to themselves, but they can't help it, perhaps you think they have nobody to blame but themselves either.
I have seen old blokes who used to do a 10p yankee every day loading note after note into them. they are addictive and should be banned.
I think the question is what's to say people aren't engaging in similarly addictive games of chance online
I would broaden the issue to all games of chance.
the frequency of event and stake size are all factors which require throttling.
I would broaden the issue to all games of chance.
the frequency of event and stake size are all factors which require throttling.
thats why it will never get stopped, you can wager 10 x more + on line.
so at their £100 max spin they look like they're doing their bit
so at their £100 max spin they look like they're doing their bit
The on line casino's have not much for you Ron
they are just as addictive?
they are just as addictive?
I was putting a bet on in a Shop , Or Trying To 
Anyway the Manager is giving it plenty to other people in the Shop about their weekly Tournaments on The machines, Some poor bloke standing next me obviously putting on his daily multi was given the full speal by the manager ,I dont even think he knew what he was talking about, I just glared at the cxnt , he shut up, as the guy was leaving Manager shouted out I just thought I would give you the heads up ,WAC,also giving people free spins ,and play money spins ,fkin leaches ..
Anyway the Manager is giving it plenty to other people in the Shop about their weekly Tournaments on The machines, Some poor bloke standing next me obviously putting on his daily multi was given the full speal by the manager ,I dont even think he knew what he was talking about, I just glared at the cxnt , he shut up, as the guy was leaving Manager shouted out I just thought I would give you the heads up ,WAC,also giving people free spins ,and play money spins ,fkin leaches ..
he was just trying to get you involved with the in-crowd
ABB manipulate figures.
There is every chance the machines are a bit not as described too, it would be impossible to actually establish.
In what way are they not accurate SF? The machines operate at a very small percentage but the attraction/addiction is the killer.
Players tend to reinvest winning and can play fortunes, thousands of pounds, whilst sitting down with £50 in their pockets.
I'm sure Steve Frater who invented them never saw the evil in them.
So ban them or limit them but you must do the same thing online which might be a tad harder to do.
There is every chance the machines are a bit not as described too, it would be impossible to actually establish.
In what way are they not accurate SF? The machines operate at a very small percentage but the attraction/addiction is the killer.
Players tend to reinvest winning and can play fortunes, thousands of pounds, whilst sitting down with £50 in their pockets.
I'm sure Steve Frater who invented them never saw the evil in them.
So ban them or limit them but you must do the same thing online which might be a tad harder to do.
BTW the increased licence fee for operating each machine has eaten into the profits and seen a reversal in the numbers of new shop openings with the multis each closing about 5% of their estate because of help the punter though but does give a small fortune to the government.
the increased licence fee didn't help the punter though it did put a nice wee few quid in the governments pockets. Typical eh.
the increased licence fee didn't help the punter though it did put a nice wee few quid in the governments pockets. Typical eh.
@casemoney I spoke to my local manager saying I wouldn't play the machines so to stop bothering me.
He apologised and said he was only acting under instructions from his bosses.
He apologised and said he was only acting under instructions from his bosses.
Sometimes the spin of the wheel and the anticipation of waiting for a result (win or lose) to come in, stimulates the same neurological pathways as a landing on winning bet....
I think thats what the program was trying to explain on why these machines are so addictive.
I think thats what the program was trying to explain on why these machines are so addictive.
Gambling addicts have existed for all time...and trying to stop someone who is addicted is early impossible
These machines and on line casino seem to be particularly addictive though?
These machines and on line casino seem to be particularly addictive though?
I don't want them banning all on line gambling though
Some of us need our daily sports best
Some of us need our daily sports best
Punting on the horses, dogs and sports way different Ebul.
Firstly you spend time looking at form etc then the event takes time.
With roulette online and on the fobts you're talking maybe thirty seconds between bets.
Nothing to think about really other than how much yer losin.
To be avoided like the plague.
Firstly you spend time looking at form etc then the event takes time.
With roulette online and on the fobts you're talking maybe thirty seconds between bets.
Nothing to think about really other than how much yer losin.
To be avoided like the plague.
I agree with all of Studyform's posts.
About 17 to 13 years ago most of my betting was placepots.
I won over £800 with my third ever p/pot bet [ a 6x £1 stake ] and thought it was a good thing ..
.... though a lot of the time I was barely breaking even, I did win a £195 x 5 p/pot (£975) which remains my biggest ever p/pot win. Most of my bets were perms with a unit stake of 10p as I was used to doing this in my j/pot betting. on
I used to put these on in Hills where I became friendly with the shop manager. After putting the placepots on I would stay to watch a few races and play the bandits hoping to win a tenner before leaving but largely through the boredom of want was showing on the screens [ fake races etc ]
Occasionally the m/c wouldn't pay out at all and I would lose £30.
The manager told me that when they opened the machines to collect the money they had the ability to alter the payout ..... so generally a new bandit would pay out more in the first week.
In 2003 I joined betfair and it's years since I went to a betting shop.
The jingles, lights and sometimes entertaining games are all designed to attract and get punters losing their money.
I'm lucky I've never had a serious addiction but those who do have to deal with it in their way.
I would have thought those who attempt or commit suicide have personal problems that include more than gambling ......... there are so many things to enjoy in life surely a way could be found to turn your life round.
Make some rules ... perhaps no listening to Morrisey or the Smiths ......
though I guess those that do are 'miserable now'.
About 17 to 13 years ago most of my betting was placepots.
I won over £800 with my third ever p/pot bet [ a 6x £1 stake ] and thought it was a good thing ..
.... though a lot of the time I was barely breaking even, I did win a £195 x 5 p/pot (£975) which remains my biggest ever p/pot win. Most of my bets were perms with a unit stake of 10p as I was used to doing this in my j/pot betting. on
I used to put these on in Hills where I became friendly with the shop manager. After putting the placepots on I would stay to watch a few races and play the bandits hoping to win a tenner before leaving but largely through the boredom of want was showing on the screens [ fake races etc ]
Occasionally the m/c wouldn't pay out at all and I would lose £30.
The manager told me that when they opened the machines to collect the money they had the ability to alter the payout ..... so generally a new bandit would pay out more in the first week.
In 2003 I joined betfair and it's years since I went to a betting shop.
The jingles, lights and sometimes entertaining games are all designed to attract and get punters losing their money.
I'm lucky I've never had a serious addiction but those who do have to deal with it in their way.
I would have thought those who attempt or commit suicide have personal problems that include more than gambling ......... there are so many things to enjoy in life surely a way could be found to turn your life round.
Make some rules ... perhaps no listening to Morrisey or the Smiths ......
though I guess those that do are 'miserable now'.
I always get the impression that FOBT addicts 'always' have unfinished business with the machines.
It becomes personal and a rivalry between machine v human, with the human often beating the sh1t out of the machine when the credit has run out and the machine does not respond.
This is a relationship issue as well as a gambling issue.
Us exchange sport/racing backers/layers/traders do not have that relationship mentality with our laptop's.
Our investments and our machines are not connected, even when we do not get matched at the decimals we wanted.
It becomes personal and a rivalry between machine v human, with the human often beating the sh1t out of the machine when the credit has run out and the machine does not respond.
This is a relationship issue as well as a gambling issue.
Us exchange sport/racing backers/layers/traders do not have that relationship mentality with our laptop's.
Our investments and our machines are not connected, even when we do not get matched at the decimals we wanted.
Hello C-C, I hope you're well.
ZenMaster, very, very true.
Akabula, Steve Frater didn't invent the machines. He was a bookie (Admiral, I think) and a mate of the inventor, Walter Grubmuller, an Austrian chap who had the idea of putting Numbers games into betting shops. Roulette wasn't even a game on the early FOBTs. I was one of the first bookies to take their machines. Mr Frater made himself millions and sold most of it off, but still is involved in them a bit. Also it's every 20 seconds, not 30!
The ABB manipulate the statistics (figures) around gambling to keep the press and GC (not that they understand them or even care) quiet.
I would suggest the £6.75 per spin quite possibly applies to all games, or at least all roulette variants and includes the smaller stakes to lower the average.
You're right, online is harder to stop, BUT the people who lose online are limited to what is available in bank accounts or credit cards and will soon hit their limits and be unable to play. Whereas the FOBTs take cash. I've done it! Got a loan, borrowed money, used money meant for other things and got into loads of trouble all from feeding the Global Spunkers.
They have percentages displayed and apparently ratified - by a Dutch organisation (mostly). How are they proven? Are they possible to prove?
I think not.
A couple of years ago, on all the machines in my shop, after making some fuss, being on radio, TV and Press, I had the Roulette content removed. This led to some tough times for me (from the machine company and GC too), but I couldn't in all conscience, be responsible for the misery I watched them create.
Anyway, I noticed 1 particular game was paying out bundles to this one regular who used to come in with his wages every Saturday, it was a Hi/Lo card game which had never really been played before, quite possibly in any of the 1000s of betting shops with these machines, especially at higher stakes. After a couple of weeks I checked the machine meters (records) and found we were losing about £3000 on this one game over a few weeks. I called the provider. They showed, but wouldn't let me copy or keep, the document, the certificate verifying the %age. It was from a lab in Holland. I asked if it had been established at higher stakes alone (£20 up to £100 a go), but got no answer and it certainly hadn't been shown on this document. Mysteriously my machine meters were all reset to zero overnight a few days later and the game was taken off of every machine in the country. I asked about it but was given rubbish reasons as to why this had happened. It reappeared a few months later, I don't suppose many people anywhere had noticed, a non-roulette, several year old, rarely played game, going then coming back. My punter played it though and never came out in front again.
I have suggested and as I said above, another solution. And that is simply to take all the roulette games off of the machines. They other games are bad but are nowhere near as damaging, nor are they as expensive, nor are they quite as easy to launder money through.
ZenMaster, very, very true.
Akabula, Steve Frater didn't invent the machines. He was a bookie (Admiral, I think) and a mate of the inventor, Walter Grubmuller, an Austrian chap who had the idea of putting Numbers games into betting shops. Roulette wasn't even a game on the early FOBTs. I was one of the first bookies to take their machines. Mr Frater made himself millions and sold most of it off, but still is involved in them a bit. Also it's every 20 seconds, not 30!
The ABB manipulate the statistics (figures) around gambling to keep the press and GC (not that they understand them or even care) quiet.
I would suggest the £6.75 per spin quite possibly applies to all games, or at least all roulette variants and includes the smaller stakes to lower the average.
You're right, online is harder to stop, BUT the people who lose online are limited to what is available in bank accounts or credit cards and will soon hit their limits and be unable to play. Whereas the FOBTs take cash. I've done it! Got a loan, borrowed money, used money meant for other things and got into loads of trouble all from feeding the Global Spunkers.
They have percentages displayed and apparently ratified - by a Dutch organisation (mostly). How are they proven? Are they possible to prove?
I think not.
A couple of years ago, on all the machines in my shop, after making some fuss, being on radio, TV and Press, I had the Roulette content removed. This led to some tough times for me (from the machine company and GC too), but I couldn't in all conscience, be responsible for the misery I watched them create.
Anyway, I noticed 1 particular game was paying out bundles to this one regular who used to come in with his wages every Saturday, it was a Hi/Lo card game which had never really been played before, quite possibly in any of the 1000s of betting shops with these machines, especially at higher stakes. After a couple of weeks I checked the machine meters (records) and found we were losing about £3000 on this one game over a few weeks. I called the provider. They showed, but wouldn't let me copy or keep, the document, the certificate verifying the %age. It was from a lab in Holland. I asked if it had been established at higher stakes alone (£20 up to £100 a go), but got no answer and it certainly hadn't been shown on this document. Mysteriously my machine meters were all reset to zero overnight a few days later and the game was taken off of every machine in the country. I asked about it but was given rubbish reasons as to why this had happened. It reappeared a few months later, I don't suppose many people anywhere had noticed, a non-roulette, several year old, rarely played game, going then coming back. My punter played it though and never came out in front again.
I have suggested and as I said above, another solution. And that is simply to take all the roulette games off of the machines. They other games are bad but are nowhere near as damaging, nor are they as expensive, nor are they quite as easy to launder money through.
If all this seems talk of addiction seems unlikely, just pop into any betting shop and watch the people playing the machines. See if they look like they're enjoying it.
I've never played an fobt as I never go into bookies.
I used to play jackpot bandits in snooker clubs and casinos and the tinker toy versions in pubs and saw how badly they could grab attention so I can understand how lethal fobts must be.
It's a pity these programmes have keep doing the job of shaming the greedy and that the ugliness of our system has to be tackled by innocent parties as this woman in the documentary.
There was a question like 'do they put profit before people?'
Come on ffs, I understand that a rallying cry but I think we all know exactly how the land lays; business and enterprise doesn't give a flying fook about people other than needing them to feed off of.
Politicians don't ban anything other than opinion and worship at the alter of anything that pays however immoral so they will continue to be their slimy selves, some sounding genuinely concerned (while playing politics) and the others suggesting they arnt problems because they themselves arnt effected and they don't want to give up the finance that they indirectly benefit from.
Civilisation is degenerate, that was said 2500 years ago....the only thing that changed was they got more efficient at being degenerate.
I used to play jackpot bandits in snooker clubs and casinos and the tinker toy versions in pubs and saw how badly they could grab attention so I can understand how lethal fobts must be.
It's a pity these programmes have keep doing the job of shaming the greedy and that the ugliness of our system has to be tackled by innocent parties as this woman in the documentary.
There was a question like 'do they put profit before people?'
Come on ffs, I understand that a rallying cry but I think we all know exactly how the land lays; business and enterprise doesn't give a flying fook about people other than needing them to feed off of.
Politicians don't ban anything other than opinion and worship at the alter of anything that pays however immoral so they will continue to be their slimy selves, some sounding genuinely concerned (while playing politics) and the others suggesting they arnt problems because they themselves arnt effected and they don't want to give up the finance that they indirectly benefit from.
Civilisation is degenerate, that was said 2500 years ago....the only thing that changed was they got more efficient at being degenerate.
when i have been in bookies lately it would seem that more
folk are playing the slot machine games than the roulette
games.
maybe this also explains the £6.75 loss per spin as they do not
have to pay out at 97%.
They do not seem to be as popular as they were, but shop staff
still constantly encourage folk to play the new games, and i
sometimes see shop staff playing a free version, and of course
winning.
its annoying trying to place a bet when the staff are playing
the machines. then having a £10 E/w referred via phone, ffs.
the programme last night was a decent start but it needs to
be followed up.
good luck to the lady who lost her partner and to the guy fighting
his addiction.
folk are playing the slot machine games than the roulette
games.
maybe this also explains the £6.75 loss per spin as they do not
have to pay out at 97%.
They do not seem to be as popular as they were, but shop staff
still constantly encourage folk to play the new games, and i
sometimes see shop staff playing a free version, and of course
winning.
its annoying trying to place a bet when the staff are playing
the machines. then having a £10 E/w referred via phone, ffs.
the programme last night was a decent start but it needs to
be followed up.
good luck to the lady who lost her partner and to the guy fighting
his addiction.
Donny
the guy has been banned out of all coral shops for his own good
for the last few years
regards
ronnie
the guy has been banned out of all coral shops for his own good
for the last few years
regards
ronnie
Donny,
The slot games give a 20p/25p a spin option, so it is possible to get an hour or 2 for less than 3 figures.
They also have £20/£30 (usually for 5 spins and the promise of higher %age payouts) "high roller" options and are most often played in my experience at £1 or £2 a spin. So still can be very costly to those playing them.
The slot games give a 20p/25p a spin option, so it is possible to get an hour or 2 for less than 3 figures.
They also have £20/£30 (usually for 5 spins and the promise of higher %age payouts) "high roller" options and are most often played in my experience at £1 or £2 a spin. So still can be very costly to those playing them.
It isn't £6.75 per spin ..."the average loss of a FOBT is £6.75" ..whatever that means ?
I understood it to mean the average loss per person per session is £6.75....but how could they work that out ?
I understood it to mean the average loss per person per session is £6.75....but how could they work that out ?
I thought they meant per hour or per day. Couldn't decide.
curious-cat
The manager told me that when they opened the machines to collect the money they had the ability to alter the payout ..... so generally a new bandit would pay out more in the first week
He was telling you lies cc. Only the machines manager can alter the payout which btw is displayed on all machines.
90%+ in bookmakers but as low as 60% in service areas for instance.
The manager told me that when they opened the machines to collect the money they had the ability to alter the payout ..... so generally a new bandit would pay out more in the first week
He was telling you lies cc. Only the machines manager can alter the payout which btw is displayed on all machines.
90%+ in bookmakers but as low as 60% in service areas for instance.
Akabula, Steve Frater didn't invent the machines. He was a bookie (Admiral, I think) and a mate of the inventor, Walter Grubmuller, an Austrian chap who had the idea of putting Numbers games into betting shops. Roulette wasn't even a game on the early FOBTs. I was one of the first bookies to take their machines. Mr Frater made himself millions and sold most of it off, but still is involved in them a bit. Also it's every 20 seconds, not 30!
Steve worked for Nagles then Mecca, who took over Nagles, before leaving to start Admiral. He was instrumental in Mecca starting a customer services department.
I always thought it was Steve who first came up with the idea and Walter helped him develop it but I'll take your word for it if you know different.
Steve worked for Nagles then Mecca, who took over Nagles, before leaving to start Admiral. He was instrumental in Mecca starting a customer services department.
I always thought it was Steve who first came up with the idea and Walter helped him develop it but I'll take your word for it if you know different.
I didn't say the manager did it ... a bloke came in daily.
Anyway, I noticed 1 particular game was paying out bundles to this one regular who used to come in with his wages every Saturday, it was a Hi/Lo card game which had never really been played before, quite possibly in any of the 1000s of betting shops with these machines, especially at higher stakes. After a couple of weeks I checked the machine meters (records) and found we were losing about £3000 on this one game over a few weeks. I called the provider. They showed, but wouldn't let me copy or keep, the document, the certificate verifying the %age. It was from a lab in Holland. I asked if it had been established at higher stakes alone (£20 up to £100 a go), but got no answer and it certainly hadn't been shown on this document. Mysteriously my machine meters were all reset to zero overnight a few days later and the game was taken off of every machine in the country. I asked about it but was given rubbish reasons as to why this had happened. It reappeared a few months later, I don't suppose many people anywhere had noticed, a non-roulette, several year old, rarely played game, going then coming back. My punter played it though and never came out in front again
On a similar vein SF I do know that there was a problem with some AWPs which was eventually traced back to a rogue programmer.
He'd programmed the machines to pay out the jackpot in a given situation which involved using the hold keys.
On a similar vein SF I do know that there was a problem with some AWPs which was eventually traced back to a rogue programmer.
He'd programmed the machines to pay out the jackpot in a given situation which involved using the hold keys.
The problem with my situation, akabula, was that I had to stand the loss!!!
I suspect it happens more than they'll ever admit. In the early days when we had just AWPs engineers frequently came round with new boards for them where people had discovered bugs. When AWPs and slot games are invented it is supposed that several people in different places are involved in their invention so dodgy doings can't be done.
My son's mate works in the IT and development dept of a big online slots/casino company, he'd been there a few months when he told me this tale.....
"The average payout is set to reset at midnight, and if a particular game is not making enough there's no way you can win on it in the last few minutes, conversely one that is massively under its payout %age will pay more than it should. However there's no way of knowing which are which"
So, overall not unreasonable, until he told me this....
"I was going through the coding of one of the games and came across a line actually written in the code which said 'And this is the line that fuhks them over'".
My advice to anyone playing online slots is:
Open an account with ALL the online companies you can find and then ban (self exclude) yourself for 10 years. Do NOT take up ANY free offers (they're not free anyway).
better still, NEVER play them.
With all computerised gaming there is no way to be absolutely certain that you're not being fleeced.
Anyone who remembers Ultimate Bet's (or was it Titan) Poker scam, whereby one player could see everybody else's cards and won all the big tournaments. Should already be wary. I believe this can still be seen on Youtube, but I'm not certain.
I suspect it happens more than they'll ever admit. In the early days when we had just AWPs engineers frequently came round with new boards for them where people had discovered bugs. When AWPs and slot games are invented it is supposed that several people in different places are involved in their invention so dodgy doings can't be done.
My son's mate works in the IT and development dept of a big online slots/casino company, he'd been there a few months when he told me this tale.....
"The average payout is set to reset at midnight, and if a particular game is not making enough there's no way you can win on it in the last few minutes, conversely one that is massively under its payout %age will pay more than it should. However there's no way of knowing which are which"
So, overall not unreasonable, until he told me this....
"I was going through the coding of one of the games and came across a line actually written in the code which said 'And this is the line that fuhks them over'".
My advice to anyone playing online slots is:
Open an account with ALL the online companies you can find and then ban (self exclude) yourself for 10 years. Do NOT take up ANY free offers (they're not free anyway).
better still, NEVER play them.
With all computerised gaming there is no way to be absolutely certain that you're not being fleeced.
Anyone who remembers Ultimate Bet's (or was it Titan) Poker scam, whereby one player could see everybody else's cards and won all the big tournaments. Should already be wary. I believe this can still be seen on Youtube, but I'm not certain.
When the first fobts hit the shops they had a mid table bias.
Not big enough to earn you fortunes but enough to see you in profit.
That scam was UB and I can remember how it was found out.
If I can find the link I'll post it but it revolved around a big stakes heads up game.
The person in on the scam overplayed his hand literally and was calling bluffs with 9 high at times.
Not big enough to earn you fortunes but enough to see you in profit.
That scam was UB and I can remember how it was found out.
If I can find the link I'll post it but it revolved around a big stakes heads up game.
The person in on the scam overplayed his hand literally and was calling bluffs with 9 high at times.
This thread is more interesting and informative than the Panorama programme - I can only assume Panorama have already blown their budget for the quarter or the year and were therefore reduced to asking a member of the public to investigate when her only qualification for doing so was that she was a victim by association (not criticizing her, she came across very well in the circumstances but she was n't exactly Roger Cook).
Production values were woefully poor - 'average loss of £6.75 per FOBT' is meaningless, why were the ABB not asked to qualify that? - per spin?, per hour? per session?, per individual? How did they think that giving the owner of a casino a platform to take the moral ground was a good idea?
Panorama used to be about hard hitting investigative journalism - too much emphasis on human interest here, as sad as the stories are, anecdotal evidence based on a handful of tragic cases is unlikely to be enough to trigger a change in legislation.
A really half hearted effort by the BBC, I'd imagine the overwhelming feeling at Big Bookie HQ following the programme would be one of relief.
Production values were woefully poor - 'average loss of £6.75 per FOBT' is meaningless, why were the ABB not asked to qualify that? - per spin?, per hour? per session?, per individual? How did they think that giving the owner of a casino a platform to take the moral ground was a good idea?
Panorama used to be about hard hitting investigative journalism - too much emphasis on human interest here, as sad as the stories are, anecdotal evidence based on a handful of tragic cases is unlikely to be enough to trigger a change in legislation.
A really half hearted effort by the BBC, I'd imagine the overwhelming feeling at Big Bookie HQ following the programme would be one of relief.
One of the biggest issues with the early days of FOBTs was the turnover tax and the no lower limit bets. Players could win up to £50,000 but could stake as low as 5p so someone playing small could spend a day in the shop on £20 but stake £500 or more. He'd lose his £20 but the bookie's tax was over £30. Part of the reason the tax on bets was dropped.
There was a consultation and the govt asked the Big bookies how to be fair (not that this is ever admitted). so they came up with £500 max payout, ostensibly to keep it in the realms of "soft" and not "hard" gaming. In reality it just meant bookies were never going to have to take a big hit. Clever that. The maximum stake of £100 was handy too, as the machine owners must have realised that £100 is a big lump per spin, plus the added advantage that they'd only ever have a maximum liability of 4/1 if a chaser got carried away. Every 20 seconds, well, that's plenty. The faceless basterds working for the big few must've creamed their grubby jockeys at the result of the 'study'. Certainly there was nothing much in it for the punter and the revenue could make fortunes from tax, so have always been reluctant to change things.
The problem, ReaseHeath, with Panorama and other programmes and articles on the subject is simply that the writers/producers don't really understand betting and gambling. Any who do might even be a bit reluctant to admit it to their colleagues. After all there is still a tiny bit of stigma attached to betting.
As for the Poker, it seems that Ultimate bet, Full Tilt and PokerStars have all been implicated in some way or the other. There must surely be others.
There was a consultation and the govt asked the Big bookies how to be fair (not that this is ever admitted). so they came up with £500 max payout, ostensibly to keep it in the realms of "soft" and not "hard" gaming. In reality it just meant bookies were never going to have to take a big hit. Clever that. The maximum stake of £100 was handy too, as the machine owners must have realised that £100 is a big lump per spin, plus the added advantage that they'd only ever have a maximum liability of 4/1 if a chaser got carried away. Every 20 seconds, well, that's plenty. The faceless basterds working for the big few must've creamed their grubby jockeys at the result of the 'study'. Certainly there was nothing much in it for the punter and the revenue could make fortunes from tax, so have always been reluctant to change things.
The problem, ReaseHeath, with Panorama and other programmes and articles on the subject is simply that the writers/producers don't really understand betting and gambling. Any who do might even be a bit reluctant to admit it to their colleagues. After all there is still a tiny bit of stigma attached to betting.
As for the Poker, it seems that Ultimate bet, Full Tilt and PokerStars have all been implicated in some way or the other. There must surely be others.
The ABB refused to appear on the program btw. I always refused to join this organisation. After an article in a Sunday paper, they tried (through a PR organisation) to get me to change the story or put words in my mouth. Again faceless and without any scruples.
The one big thing I seem to be the only one saying, is that if the machines were banned tomorrow (and if Horse racing stopped overpricing itself), the over the counter business would resume some of its former glory and the non-expense of renting the machines would cover the difference and the only losers would be the FOBT companies, who have ridden on the gravy train for ages now anyway.
The one big thing I seem to be the only one saying, is that if the machines were banned tomorrow (and if Horse racing stopped overpricing itself), the over the counter business would resume some of its former glory and the non-expense of renting the machines would cover the difference and the only losers would be the FOBT companies, who have ridden on the gravy train for ages now anyway.
don't get many new yougsters playing the horses study bar grand national.
they like the football but all phone/laptop based
if FOBT's banned an awful lot of shops would go
they like the football but all phone/laptop based
if FOBT's banned an awful lot of shops would go
Can only speak as a consumer, the only time I go into a bookies now would be on my way to football on a Saturday to watch a race or two which I'd had a bet on (or not) via an app on my phone earlier in the day.
It's quite depressing, would n't be unusual for me to be the only person watching the horse race - though the place is busy enough with people playing the machines or even watching the lunchtime football match on a screen 4 times the size of the one showing the racing.
It was n't so long ago that I would go in to watch a race before the match and strike up a conversation with a few like minded souls I did n't know who were likely to be there all afternoon watching and betting on the racing (that was in an independent shop which is now an Indian restaurant).
I struggle to see how we get back to the latter scenario.
It's quite depressing, would n't be unusual for me to be the only person watching the horse race - though the place is busy enough with people playing the machines or even watching the lunchtime football match on a screen 4 times the size of the one showing the racing.
It was n't so long ago that I would go in to watch a race before the match and strike up a conversation with a few like minded souls I did n't know who were likely to be there all afternoon watching and betting on the racing (that was in an independent shop which is now an Indian restaurant).
I struggle to see how we get back to the latter scenario.
They've already gone, Capt_F. So have coupon providers and lots of other associated suppliers.
Not just the machines and the expensive horse racing, but the sheer volume of crap filling the shop via SIS.
7 live dog meetings and anywhere from 5 to 15 horse meetings covered live, virtual stuff (cartoon racing) all day, non stop loyalty card and meaningless special offers. A vast majority of shops won't take any bets on 70% of this nonsense.
But it's all being run by marketing theorists who know nothing about actual bookmaking and who realise even less that people can, generally speaking, only lose the money they have on them. What these idiots believe is that more betting opportunities means more revenue. Most of the betting opportunities add to bookmakers overheads, especially those of the smaller companies/indies. If there were 2 dog meetings and 3 horse meetings a day, and it was advertised properly, (and football and sports betting, of course) the revenue would be more or less the same or a fraction less than now, but the overheads would be far lower.
I may have lost everything trying to be an honest and fair bookie, but I made it to the last 100. There are less than 100 left. there were 500+ just 5 years ago. It's not just the internet, because mostly that belongs to the same big firms (and bet £3.65) anyway, so they could wind it down if they had to.
Between them, the Big firms, SIS (owned by the big firms), the Gambling Commission (who believe, or want to, all the big firms say), unfair trading practices, licencing fees and FOBTs have, imo, killed the small bookies off. And it's sad. The local bookies and the little flutter and meeting place have all gone and moved to main high streets and shopping centres. There are actually fewer shops than there used to be, they've just been repositioned.
Not just the machines and the expensive horse racing, but the sheer volume of crap filling the shop via SIS.
7 live dog meetings and anywhere from 5 to 15 horse meetings covered live, virtual stuff (cartoon racing) all day, non stop loyalty card and meaningless special offers. A vast majority of shops won't take any bets on 70% of this nonsense.
But it's all being run by marketing theorists who know nothing about actual bookmaking and who realise even less that people can, generally speaking, only lose the money they have on them. What these idiots believe is that more betting opportunities means more revenue. Most of the betting opportunities add to bookmakers overheads, especially those of the smaller companies/indies. If there were 2 dog meetings and 3 horse meetings a day, and it was advertised properly, (and football and sports betting, of course) the revenue would be more or less the same or a fraction less than now, but the overheads would be far lower.
I may have lost everything trying to be an honest and fair bookie, but I made it to the last 100. There are less than 100 left. there were 500+ just 5 years ago. It's not just the internet, because mostly that belongs to the same big firms (and bet £3.65) anyway, so they could wind it down if they had to.
Between them, the Big firms, SIS (owned by the big firms), the Gambling Commission (who believe, or want to, all the big firms say), unfair trading practices, licencing fees and FOBTs have, imo, killed the small bookies off. And it's sad. The local bookies and the little flutter and meeting place have all gone and moved to main high streets and shopping centres. There are actually fewer shops than there used to be, they've just been repositioned.
I appreciate small independents on last legs i was thinking more big firm estates.
Study where do you get your info less than 100 indy left ?
Study where do you get your info less than 100 indy left ?
Nobody seems to want to examine the bigger picture.
What are the social costs of these machines ? - Increased costs of healthcare / crime/ broken families etc.
Yes bookies would close but, the money the bookies lose would just be spent in other places generating tax /new jobs etc. Resources would just move from an antisocial /unproductive sector to more efficient and productive areas.
What are the social costs of these machines ? - Increased costs of healthcare / crime/ broken families etc.
Yes bookies would close but, the money the bookies lose would just be spent in other places generating tax /new jobs etc. Resources would just move from an antisocial /unproductive sector to more efficient and productive areas.
for the tv licence dodgers watching i wouldnt lose to much sleep the bbc had 6 peado,s working for them and couldnt detect 1 of them in 50 yrs. 
Capt,
From the last few suppliers to me. Most of whom, except FOBT suppliers and SIS, have fallen by the wayside too. Indies include firms with dozens of shops too. One bookie I know very well Had 10 shops and a thriving phone business just a few years ago. He was down to 3 last time we spoke.
Another thing, there are no (or very few) hedging facilities left. The big firms certainly won't do it. Before the FOBTs they were fighting each other for the business.
Insrtead they've all got together and done roughly what Tescos have done to small local grocery stores.
Johnny,
Part of the complaints made by councillors and in press comment, is precisely what you're saying and its right and fits neatly with all the other misgivings. However you have to be careful saying such things on this forum. Next you'll be "a hand-wringing leftie".
From the last few suppliers to me. Most of whom, except FOBT suppliers and SIS, have fallen by the wayside too. Indies include firms with dozens of shops too. One bookie I know very well Had 10 shops and a thriving phone business just a few years ago. He was down to 3 last time we spoke.
Another thing, there are no (or very few) hedging facilities left. The big firms certainly won't do it. Before the FOBTs they were fighting each other for the business.
Insrtead they've all got together and done roughly what Tescos have done to small local grocery stores.
Johnny,
Part of the complaints made by councillors and in press comment, is precisely what you're saying and its right and fits neatly with all the other misgivings. However you have to be careful saying such things on this forum. Next you'll be "a hand-wringing leftie".
Studyform said:
"My advice to anyone playing online slots is:
Open an account with ALL the online companies you can find and then ban (self exclude) yourself for 10 years. Do NOT take up ANY free offers (they're not free anyway).
better still, NEVER play them."
Mmm. He's now come round to telling people to take some personal responsibility for their actions. Finally, he gets it.
And this is how people at GA beat their addictions - by admitting nobody but themselves made them do it ( you have been to a GA meeting right, Study? )
People who persistently blame their wife, the government, or the bookies for their problems never recover fully. And if they have mates telling them that it's not their fault then the recovery will be longer and harder.
And imo, my best point still stands - the way to get a sense of community back to betting shops and to have punters looking out for each other is to get rid of the limits of 4 FOBTs per shop, to have fewer betting shops and let larger shops develop with lower overheads per punter. Nobody would restrict bingo halls in the way that bookies are restricted, and there is a lot of community at the bingo. Nobody wants to ban supermarkets or big sports centres with 8 football pitches. Lone cashiers and lone players exist in betting shops precisely because of the restrictions.
"My advice to anyone playing online slots is:
Open an account with ALL the online companies you can find and then ban (self exclude) yourself for 10 years. Do NOT take up ANY free offers (they're not free anyway).
better still, NEVER play them."
Mmm. He's now come round to telling people to take some personal responsibility for their actions. Finally, he gets it.
And this is how people at GA beat their addictions - by admitting nobody but themselves made them do it ( you have been to a GA meeting right, Study? )
People who persistently blame their wife, the government, or the bookies for their problems never recover fully. And if they have mates telling them that it's not their fault then the recovery will be longer and harder.
And imo, my best point still stands - the way to get a sense of community back to betting shops and to have punters looking out for each other is to get rid of the limits of 4 FOBTs per shop, to have fewer betting shops and let larger shops develop with lower overheads per punter. Nobody would restrict bingo halls in the way that bookies are restricted, and there is a lot of community at the bingo. Nobody wants to ban supermarkets or big sports centres with 8 football pitches. Lone cashiers and lone players exist in betting shops precisely because of the restrictions.
Nobody would restrict bingo halls in the way that bookies are restricted
Most of the restrictions were removed a few years back bongo.
I'm sue that now you only have to provide proof of need.
Most of the restrictions were removed a few years back bongo.
I'm sue that now you only have to provide proof of need.
No, bongo, you don't get it.
I'm saying self-exclude before you get addicted.
In my 2 visits to GA, I didn't hear anyone blame everyone else. They blamed themselves and wanted to stop doing the damage they were doing to themselves and others.
Because they were addicted.
As I said, the same applies to drink or drugs, as I also said, anorexics and overeaters too have no-one to blame but themselves, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped, does it?
Your last paragraph is nonsense. If it's your best point your others are seriously lacking.
As akabula says, bookies are not restricted, nor have they been for years.
They just need to satisfy the local council, which may soon be more difficult, but hasn't been an issue for a while. There is no 'needs proof' requirement either.
As for punters "looking out for each other" I can't even work out what that means, along with "lower overheads per punter".
Betting shops should be for betting, arcades for machines, casinos for casino games, bingo halls for bingo.
Lone staff exist because the bookies (mainly big companies) see wages as an evil and something which needs cutting. How you can say having more machines in a shop would lead to less lone players is a bit of a mystery too.
There aren't too many shops, they are just clustered. There are about 1/2 the betting shops now that there were in the 1960's. If those running the big firms thought about that and returned things to how they were before all the things I've mentioned throughout this thread, then perhaps less damage would be done and community values might come back a bit.
I'm saying self-exclude before you get addicted.
In my 2 visits to GA, I didn't hear anyone blame everyone else. They blamed themselves and wanted to stop doing the damage they were doing to themselves and others.
Because they were addicted.
As I said, the same applies to drink or drugs, as I also said, anorexics and overeaters too have no-one to blame but themselves, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped, does it?
Your last paragraph is nonsense. If it's your best point your others are seriously lacking.
As akabula says, bookies are not restricted, nor have they been for years.
They just need to satisfy the local council, which may soon be more difficult, but hasn't been an issue for a while. There is no 'needs proof' requirement either.
As for punters "looking out for each other" I can't even work out what that means, along with "lower overheads per punter".
Betting shops should be for betting, arcades for machines, casinos for casino games, bingo halls for bingo.
Lone staff exist because the bookies (mainly big companies) see wages as an evil and something which needs cutting. How you can say having more machines in a shop would lead to less lone players is a bit of a mystery too.
There aren't too many shops, they are just clustered. There are about 1/2 the betting shops now that there were in the 1960's. If those running the big firms thought about that and returned things to how they were before all the things I've mentioned throughout this thread, then perhaps less damage would be done and community values might come back a bit.
I thought overprovision was a means of objection SF. stand corrected if wrong.
Study, I worked for SIS for several years, at the coalface taking in and disseminating information. A small room full of racing nuts and dedicated punters - I've worked over the years in several such workplaces and you get to know the odd proper judge as I'm sure you know. SIS was mental - there were eight people out of about the 25 there when I joined who made more money punting than the pittance George Irvine would sanction as wages.
SIS was established with the sole intention of killing off the Independent bookmaker - the major bookmakers joined forces to fund the purchase of the Rights, and brought Racal Wireless in to provide the technology. I was privy to a lot of the decisions that were made because of my position there, and in succession, measures were taken to take another few sole traders and small chains out of the game incrementally. Each step - Sundays, evenings, lunchtime dogs every day, cartoon racing - the most insidious step of them all - taken to remove competition from the High Street. This was the exact purpose of all the additions to the daily programme - I ran an Independent for years before I joined SIS and it was a total doddle, a license to print money and a barrel of laughs. I'm running one now for a mate who kind of inherited it, probably one of the last 100 as you say - I can't imagine there could be more than that - and it is an epic chore. Open 10, close 8. Ten hour day and from moment one not a minute's respite from the noise of the machines and Phil Lockett, who I could cheerfully strangle even though he used to be my little buddy.
One thing I do know for sure is that the machines should be banned. Not restricted, not amended, not more heavily taxed, just outright proscribed. I am not coerced into promoting them, we don't run competitions, we do some real good trade OTC and we have some decent punters. The things I see people do on my machines is absolutely frightening, and I always know when I hear people say 'it's all their own fault, nobody forces them, it's their own choice' that that person knows precisely nothing about the nature of addiction, or the nature of FOBTs.
SIS was established with the sole intention of killing off the Independent bookmaker - the major bookmakers joined forces to fund the purchase of the Rights, and brought Racal Wireless in to provide the technology. I was privy to a lot of the decisions that were made because of my position there, and in succession, measures were taken to take another few sole traders and small chains out of the game incrementally. Each step - Sundays, evenings, lunchtime dogs every day, cartoon racing - the most insidious step of them all - taken to remove competition from the High Street. This was the exact purpose of all the additions to the daily programme - I ran an Independent for years before I joined SIS and it was a total doddle, a license to print money and a barrel of laughs. I'm running one now for a mate who kind of inherited it, probably one of the last 100 as you say - I can't imagine there could be more than that - and it is an epic chore. Open 10, close 8. Ten hour day and from moment one not a minute's respite from the noise of the machines and Phil Lockett, who I could cheerfully strangle even though he used to be my little buddy.
One thing I do know for sure is that the machines should be banned. Not restricted, not amended, not more heavily taxed, just outright proscribed. I am not coerced into promoting them, we don't run competitions, we do some real good trade OTC and we have some decent punters. The things I see people do on my machines is absolutely frightening, and I always know when I hear people say 'it's all their own fault, nobody forces them, it's their own choice' that that person knows precisely nothing about the nature of addiction, or the nature of FOBTs.
I've been campaigning for ball under cup and penny up the wall for years and they persist with this fobt nonsense. Such a poor use of space.
jed
would your shop be viable without the machines ?
if yes dump them, not compulsory ?
would your shop be viable without the machines ?
if yes dump them, not compulsory ?
It's not my shop, as I said.
Business-wise, you can't not have them with a shop down the road that does. The money he makes from the machines can be used to undercut your concessions, and it's goodnight.
Business-wise, you can't not have them with a shop down the road that does. The money he makes from the machines can be used to undercut your concessions, and it's goodnight.
You're sort of confirming what I've long suspected, jed. Very interesting stuff. Especially about the cartoon racing. I lost money on that too. It's all about small stakes - high returns now, I reckon this started with lottery marketing, and if someone cops it could be closing down level expense. I stopped taking tricast bets on cartoons in the end, the fear was too great.
imo, George Irvine deserves no wages. I have absolutely no time for him, nor for many of his past and present colleagues come to that.
Another little fact about FOBTs is that they cost in the area of 50% of their take (inc tax) for the smaller bookies and about 35% for the big firms.
Same as the Gaming Licence (£1500 ish, single shop, £100 ish, Big 4 shop). and SIS, (£20K per single shop per year, £1 million or less for entire Badblokes estate - so about less than £1000 per shop per year).
Everything is plus VAT, so 20% is added to all costs.
I did contact the Office of fair trading about SIS and although they said I had a point, they told me there were no resources to deal with them.
My estimate is that the average indie needs to make in the region of £350 a day to stand still (off a current margin of about 12-14% which was 20-25% 15 years ago) but the big firms shops probably only need to make about £200.
So for small companies, capt_f, the cost of machine rental might take care of some of the income, but as jed says, punters perceive the shop as not modern and a bit skint if the machines aren't there, so not having them would cost custom. One step to take tho, could be the unique one I took, which was to get all roulette removed. Though the machine providers will want to come up with a new deal if you do.... like they did with me. (They also -unsuccessfully - tried to make me sign a non-disclosure clause in the amendment to the contract).
It's all quite depressing really, I worked my nuts off only to lose the lot and it was a situation designed by some greedy faceless yuppets working for companies and "on behalf of shareholders" who couldn't care less about them and who would have made a reasonable profit anyway.
imo, George Irvine deserves no wages. I have absolutely no time for him, nor for many of his past and present colleagues come to that.
Another little fact about FOBTs is that they cost in the area of 50% of their take (inc tax) for the smaller bookies and about 35% for the big firms.
Same as the Gaming Licence (£1500 ish, single shop, £100 ish, Big 4 shop). and SIS, (£20K per single shop per year, £1 million or less for entire Badblokes estate - so about less than £1000 per shop per year).
Everything is plus VAT, so 20% is added to all costs.
I did contact the Office of fair trading about SIS and although they said I had a point, they told me there were no resources to deal with them.
My estimate is that the average indie needs to make in the region of £350 a day to stand still (off a current margin of about 12-14% which was 20-25% 15 years ago) but the big firms shops probably only need to make about £200.
So for small companies, capt_f, the cost of machine rental might take care of some of the income, but as jed says, punters perceive the shop as not modern and a bit skint if the machines aren't there, so not having them would cost custom. One step to take tho, could be the unique one I took, which was to get all roulette removed. Though the machine providers will want to come up with a new deal if you do.... like they did with me. (They also -unsuccessfully - tried to make me sign a non-disclosure clause in the amendment to the contract).
It's all quite depressing really, I worked my nuts off only to lose the lot and it was a situation designed by some greedy faceless yuppets working for companies and "on behalf of shareholders" who couldn't care less about them and who would have made a reasonable profit anyway.
How strange, the above post hasn't move the thread up the page.
imo, George Irvine deserves no wages
I vaguely remember a rick he made in the 70s when representing Corals at the cricket. England v whoever.
He went a ridiculously high price on the follow on and the players took advantage, on the quiet of course.
I'm sure it was 50s.
I vaguely remember a rick he made in the 70s when representing Corals at the cricket. England v whoever.
He went a ridiculously high price on the follow on and the players took advantage, on the quiet of course.
I'm sure it was 50s.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539