We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/schedule/
Show More
technology horse stable bolted
24/7 smartphone
gambling addicts best liars
24/7 smartphone
gambling addicts best liars
lost his family 25 years ago
borrowed 20k
just paid it back now
borrowed 20k
just paid it back now
Greg
Sunderland
a pro FOBT player
says he make £100 to 1k a day
Sunderland
a pro FOBT player
says he make £100 to 1k a day
You mean James O'Brexit of the far left?
Surely he's in the pay of the EU.
Every day when I'm a tad slow to turn him off after the LBC news he's into an attack on Brexit.
If he likes the EU so much then why doesn't he go and live there?
Even the BBC gave him the boot for bias.
Of course his anti-Brexit stance on LBC is also an act to create controversy which is what call in shows are all about.
He probably voted for Brexit himself if the truth's known.
Surely he's in the pay of the EU.
Every day when I'm a tad slow to turn him off after the LBC news he's into an attack on Brexit.
If he likes the EU so much then why doesn't he go and live there?
Even the BBC gave him the boot for bias.
Of course his anti-Brexit stance on LBC is also an act to create controversy which is what call in shows are all about.
He probably voted for Brexit himself if the truth's known.
James O'Brexit is no stranger to misinformation anxious.
He is of the far-left, which is why the BBC sacked him.
He tries to cover it up, but it's there all right.
He is of the far-left, which is why the BBC sacked him.
He tries to cover it up, but it's there all right.
Stumped for words again anxious? You're not the sharpest tool in the box are you.
If you think O Brien is far left then your defintley losing it
Mind you some people are locked into paranoid fantasy worlds
Does anyone have a contribution to make on the subject of FOBTs? I've never played one but the topic interests me.
Thanks.
Thanks.
I'm sure they're curse, anything that swallows your money with no overall return is a curse.
nick - has been a topic of interest to me down the years. Think there's a real disconnect in forcing people to only play £2 on a terminal in a shop but can get their phones out their pockets and blow hundreds.
Shops can refuse to serve if you're drunk, in a bad emotional state or are begging for money for one more spin. But online there's no visibility and you could be snorting coke off a hooker's hooters while playing online and they'd be none the wiser.
There's always been talk that the campaign's intentions haven't always been transparent. The guy behind it was a game manufacturer who fell out with bookies. The accusation is that this is more of a vendetta rather than a real desire for fairness and justice. You'd have to look up his submissions to the GC etc and decide for yourself on that.
That said, I think they're odious machines. There is clearly an element in them that encourages you to have one more go. I think they are specifically targeted at inexperienced gamblers and foreigners who have no interest trying to decipher form. And I think the regulator could have got hold of this much earlier and have been left chasing as the campaign got round them and straight into Parliament, forcing them to play catch up.
Shops can refuse to serve if you're drunk, in a bad emotional state or are begging for money for one more spin. But online there's no visibility and you could be snorting coke off a hooker's hooters while playing online and they'd be none the wiser.
There's always been talk that the campaign's intentions haven't always been transparent. The guy behind it was a game manufacturer who fell out with bookies. The accusation is that this is more of a vendetta rather than a real desire for fairness and justice. You'd have to look up his submissions to the GC etc and decide for yourself on that.
That said, I think they're odious machines. There is clearly an element in them that encourages you to have one more go. I think they are specifically targeted at inexperienced gamblers and foreigners who have no interest trying to decipher form. And I think the regulator could have got hold of this much earlier and have been left chasing as the campaign got round them and straight into Parliament, forcing them to play catch up.
reducing steaks to £2 may drive folk online but online already exists
shops have targeted any punter entering with offers to get them hooked, and its
been disasterous for many , who have done life savings of 10s of thousands when
they wouldnt stick more than £2 on a horse race
maybe now shops can be full of old folk drinking free tea and coffee playing bingo
at 5p a pop, and the odd 25p rev forcast on grandbairns birthdays on cartoon racing.
probably means bookies go back to 10am opening and close at 5.30pm, and punters
need to reorganise to get on.
shops have targeted any punter entering with offers to get them hooked, and its
been disasterous for many , who have done life savings of 10s of thousands when
they wouldnt stick more than £2 on a horse race
maybe now shops can be full of old folk drinking free tea and coffee playing bingo
at 5p a pop, and the odd 25p rev forcast on grandbairns birthdays on cartoon racing.
probably means bookies go back to 10am opening and close at 5.30pm, and punters
need to reorganise to get on.
online, they can smash up there own houses , as oppose to the shops
Fobt is extremely addictive thus the factors contributing to addiction must be broken or dismantled, the main ones being continuity and environment. For instance, at home there can be many distractions playing fobt online eg door bell, visitor, kettle, family, etc, breaking the continuity of play which is significant; the most important is cash cannot be used, and depositing money using a debit/credit card takes time too (if approved) which could initiate a reality check on amount spent/wasted.
With continuity disrupted and environment less conducive plus the much lower possible winnings per spin the attraction to play fobt is severely reduced similarly the power of addiction.
With continuity disrupted and environment less conducive plus the much lower possible winnings per spin the attraction to play fobt is severely reduced similarly the power of addiction.
Fobt is extremely addictive
Citation please.
The reason why I'm calling this out is that the Gambling Commission iirc actually try and measure the addictiveness of different types of play, and guess what?
Exchange betting is more addictive than FOBTs. And exchange betting is usually done at home.
Citation please.
The reason why I'm calling this out is that the Gambling Commission iirc actually try and measure the addictiveness of different types of play, and guess what?
Exchange betting is more addictive than FOBTs. And exchange betting is usually done at home.
Sooner they're gone the better, ruined so many people's lives and only a greedy tosspot who makes money from them would support them.
I was one of the first bookies to take these machines in my shop. At this time I met the developers of the machines too and discussed the way they were designed. This was before the existence of the (thoroughly useless) Gambling Commission.
There was no roulette content, stakes were unlimited and payouts could be as much as £50,000.
But they were quite slow burners. Punters treated them like slot machines and bookies didn't like players to spend all day playing 5 or 10p a go on whatever game they were playing, mostly because there was a turnover tax on betting back then and FOBTs were considered -and still are - as being bets on outside (ie not events from within the machine itself) events.
Then came roulette and the Gambling Commission and a disgraceful consultation and some legislation regarding staking, because some casinos were complaining that betting shops weren't supposed to be for 'Hard' gambling, casinos were.
The subsequent changes were absolutely perfect for the big bookies and I still believe they were the only ones consulted by the GC, who wouldn't have understood the ramifications of the new set-up, which was, as it is now. £100 maximum stake, £500 maximum payout. And (an ideal number really) of 4 machines max per shop.
A maximum win to maximum stake of just 4/1!!!!
Around and just before this came the changes to Horse racing mostly set up by Peter Savile, iirc, who managed to overprice the sport and distance the papers, TV, radio (they used to give the results out all day if you remember), and others. As a result of this the cost to, especially smaller, bookies for SIS became almost prohibitive. SO more reliance on the FOBTs ensued. Again, because they got a much better rental deal than independents, the more or less guaranteed income was better for them than risky old expensive horse racing.
Now the marketing people took over and decided that the optimum rate at getting betting opportunities to punters was 1 a minute, so now there was rapido, virtual racing, 49's, about 7 live dog meetings a day, evening racing.
In most shops this made very little, BUT, it persuaded the GC that the shops needed to be open from 8.30am to 9.30pm, or even longer in some places.
This meant more time for people to play the FOBTs.
As it slowly became apparent that these things, especially roulette, were extremely addictive. And I can attest to this, because even though I know how they work, how they pay, what they cost and everything else about them, I got hooked too.
1 mate of mine committed suicide and another nearly did but was found in time.
There were regular punters, I saw old blokes who might previously have put on a 10p lucky 15 now pumping £10 notes into games of chance they didn't even understand, such is the pull of these things. Losing their pensions, savings and mortgage money.
The public outcry and label of "crack cocaine of gambling" brought about some COMPULSORY (if you anted to keep your GC licence) money to gambling charities - all based in the west end of London and proportionally far cheaper to the biggest bookies - like the GC licence itself, by the way. And then the keep it FUN campaign and setting limits facility on the machines themselves. All of which were and are totally ignored by the players but kept the media and unfriendly politicians at bay. The government stepped in by placing a 25% tax on all machine profits. This didn't affect the punters in any way.
As a bookie in a different part of the country, some years later I took a couple of the machines on again.
As time went on, some of the things I witnessed people doing, hurt. So I became the one vocal bookie (there were a few others but they were less public) who helped the campaign to lower the stakes. It got me in papers, on the radio and TV and strangely, some unfavourable interest from the GC. And problems with the machine suppliers.
All the time less and less betting being done over the counter in betting shops all over the country, the big firms have loads of incentives to either get people on the machines, or at least onto their online and offshore casino apps and sites.
The GC gives out lectures and advice on how to deal with money laundering, yet these things are probably the best and most common way there is to do it, and the bookies all know it but, to be fair cannot easily implement the GC advice, in much the same way that telling someone they've done enough and should leave it now when they just blew the mortgage money and have £20 left is very likely to result in a right hook.
I watched a punter, nice bloke, single dad, who just got a first month's pay cheque from a job he was so excited to have got, play some roulette He was saying he had his kid's school money and some shopping money and rent and stuff, and a £100 or so left over.
He lost the hundred, then another £400 trying to get it back then the rest of it (he must have had an idea he might need it because he'd drawn all his wage out of the bank),
Then the rest.
Now he's panicking, "what am I gonna do? I need at least £400".
He called his mum, she lent him £400. Inside 30 minutes of his return to the shop, he lost that too.
He asked me if he could borrow my computer - wanted to get a payday loan £500. I said yes but he was to leave the shop and not come back because I'd turn the machines of if he tried to play them.
He successfully got his loan. Took it to Baldfreds and lost it there.
Another bloke, never seen him before, came in played for 20 minutes, lost about £200, went to the cashpoint got another £200. 10 minutes later that was gone.
He left. 1/2 an hour later he was marched in by his wife and made to fill in self-exclusion forms by her. She was angry, very angry. Screaming at him about the £100 he'd lost.
She said he'd poured a full bottle of milk down the sink and said there's no milk and gone out for some... mine was the nearest betting shop he wasn't self-excluded from.
For all his embarrassment and loss of face, dignity and money, he still could tell her he'd lost £400 and not £100.
Some people have won, but it has just made them play for bigger stakes, so they lose more and more quickly as time goes on.
I firmly believe that the loss of these machines a few years ago might have saved independent bookmakers from virtual extinction, that their demise will just see money return over the counter. Bookies take about 1/4 to 1/3 of the bets over the counter that they used to, and because there are no longer actual bookies working in their shops, just cashiers on cashiers wages, there is not much understanding of gambling, bets, odds or any of the stuff that made the industry what it once was. But for all this, people still like a bet, and there will be an increase of OTC activity and the companies who rent these evil machines out will no longer benefit from them.
Maybe betting shops will return to communities and off the high streets where they never used to be much anyway.
The one thing that separates the FOBTs from online is CASH. For some people, there's no money in the bank or on credit cards etc, so if they get some cash they're on the FOBTs. Another good reason to get rid of them.
There is, believe it or not, a good deal more I could have written here, but you get the gist.
There was no roulette content, stakes were unlimited and payouts could be as much as £50,000.
But they were quite slow burners. Punters treated them like slot machines and bookies didn't like players to spend all day playing 5 or 10p a go on whatever game they were playing, mostly because there was a turnover tax on betting back then and FOBTs were considered -and still are - as being bets on outside (ie not events from within the machine itself) events.
Then came roulette and the Gambling Commission and a disgraceful consultation and some legislation regarding staking, because some casinos were complaining that betting shops weren't supposed to be for 'Hard' gambling, casinos were.
The subsequent changes were absolutely perfect for the big bookies and I still believe they were the only ones consulted by the GC, who wouldn't have understood the ramifications of the new set-up, which was, as it is now. £100 maximum stake, £500 maximum payout. And (an ideal number really) of 4 machines max per shop.
A maximum win to maximum stake of just 4/1!!!!
Around and just before this came the changes to Horse racing mostly set up by Peter Savile, iirc, who managed to overprice the sport and distance the papers, TV, radio (they used to give the results out all day if you remember), and others. As a result of this the cost to, especially smaller, bookies for SIS became almost prohibitive. SO more reliance on the FOBTs ensued. Again, because they got a much better rental deal than independents, the more or less guaranteed income was better for them than risky old expensive horse racing.
Now the marketing people took over and decided that the optimum rate at getting betting opportunities to punters was 1 a minute, so now there was rapido, virtual racing, 49's, about 7 live dog meetings a day, evening racing.
In most shops this made very little, BUT, it persuaded the GC that the shops needed to be open from 8.30am to 9.30pm, or even longer in some places.
This meant more time for people to play the FOBTs.
As it slowly became apparent that these things, especially roulette, were extremely addictive. And I can attest to this, because even though I know how they work, how they pay, what they cost and everything else about them, I got hooked too.
1 mate of mine committed suicide and another nearly did but was found in time.
There were regular punters, I saw old blokes who might previously have put on a 10p lucky 15 now pumping £10 notes into games of chance they didn't even understand, such is the pull of these things. Losing their pensions, savings and mortgage money.
The public outcry and label of "crack cocaine of gambling" brought about some COMPULSORY (if you anted to keep your GC licence) money to gambling charities - all based in the west end of London and proportionally far cheaper to the biggest bookies - like the GC licence itself, by the way. And then the keep it FUN campaign and setting limits facility on the machines themselves. All of which were and are totally ignored by the players but kept the media and unfriendly politicians at bay. The government stepped in by placing a 25% tax on all machine profits. This didn't affect the punters in any way.
As a bookie in a different part of the country, some years later I took a couple of the machines on again.
As time went on, some of the things I witnessed people doing, hurt. So I became the one vocal bookie (there were a few others but they were less public) who helped the campaign to lower the stakes. It got me in papers, on the radio and TV and strangely, some unfavourable interest from the GC. And problems with the machine suppliers.
All the time less and less betting being done over the counter in betting shops all over the country, the big firms have loads of incentives to either get people on the machines, or at least onto their online and offshore casino apps and sites.
The GC gives out lectures and advice on how to deal with money laundering, yet these things are probably the best and most common way there is to do it, and the bookies all know it but, to be fair cannot easily implement the GC advice, in much the same way that telling someone they've done enough and should leave it now when they just blew the mortgage money and have £20 left is very likely to result in a right hook.
I watched a punter, nice bloke, single dad, who just got a first month's pay cheque from a job he was so excited to have got, play some roulette He was saying he had his kid's school money and some shopping money and rent and stuff, and a £100 or so left over.
He lost the hundred, then another £400 trying to get it back then the rest of it (he must have had an idea he might need it because he'd drawn all his wage out of the bank),
Then the rest.
Now he's panicking, "what am I gonna do? I need at least £400".
He called his mum, she lent him £400. Inside 30 minutes of his return to the shop, he lost that too.
He asked me if he could borrow my computer - wanted to get a payday loan £500. I said yes but he was to leave the shop and not come back because I'd turn the machines of if he tried to play them.
He successfully got his loan. Took it to Baldfreds and lost it there.
Another bloke, never seen him before, came in played for 20 minutes, lost about £200, went to the cashpoint got another £200. 10 minutes later that was gone.
He left. 1/2 an hour later he was marched in by his wife and made to fill in self-exclusion forms by her. She was angry, very angry. Screaming at him about the £100 he'd lost.
She said he'd poured a full bottle of milk down the sink and said there's no milk and gone out for some... mine was the nearest betting shop he wasn't self-excluded from.
For all his embarrassment and loss of face, dignity and money, he still could tell her he'd lost £400 and not £100.
Some people have won, but it has just made them play for bigger stakes, so they lose more and more quickly as time goes on.
I firmly believe that the loss of these machines a few years ago might have saved independent bookmakers from virtual extinction, that their demise will just see money return over the counter. Bookies take about 1/4 to 1/3 of the bets over the counter that they used to, and because there are no longer actual bookies working in their shops, just cashiers on cashiers wages, there is not much understanding of gambling, bets, odds or any of the stuff that made the industry what it once was. But for all this, people still like a bet, and there will be an increase of OTC activity and the companies who rent these evil machines out will no longer benefit from them.
Maybe betting shops will return to communities and off the high streets where they never used to be much anyway.
The one thing that separates the FOBTs from online is CASH. For some people, there's no money in the bank or on credit cards etc, so if they get some cash they're on the FOBTs. Another good reason to get rid of them.
There is, believe it or not, a good deal more I could have written here, but you get the gist.
Interesting post STUDY didn't know you used to be a bookmaker,my initial reason for joining the forum was to highlight the rancid goings on in the bookmaking industry mainly from a betting side of things obviously the FOBT's and changes in attitudes are a big factor hopefully a change for the better is around the corner.
Spent some of my happiest days in one of my local independents the relationship dynamic completely different whereas shops nowadays are cold uninviting places where it is frowned upon if you have the audacity to want to bet on a horse or greyhound race.
Would imagine there's still some decent staff from way back left but haven't experienced too many positives during the periods of enforced multiple shop betting which is one of the effects of bookmakers not taking bets in the first place.
Spent some of my happiest days in one of my local independents the relationship dynamic completely different whereas shops nowadays are cold uninviting places where it is frowned upon if you have the audacity to want to bet on a horse or greyhound race.
Would imagine there's still some decent staff from way back left but haven't experienced too many positives during the periods of enforced multiple shop betting which is one of the effects of bookmakers not taking bets in the first place.
The Gambling commission, who were invented and brought in to police an industry that was very well self-policed, that goes for betting shops AND casinos, have actually been a major factor in the demise of what we all had.
There were, and always will be, problem gamblers, but the betting industry was in the main an honourable one. The complete takeover by ex-marketing and business studies students, coupled with only very big organisations who don't understand the business they're in have collaborated to ensure a healthy wage for themselves and a few pals, bog all for most of the staff and no real way to bet as we knew it.
Selling off the tote was a bad move too.
A majority of old school gamblers simply don't understand or have the time or patience to use BF and don't realise the rip-off special offers and poor service they are now subjected to.
On-course is just as bad, imo. I have worked with bookies on course and have been to some of the biggest meetings, as well as some very small ones, on many race courses.
The focus is on after racing entertainment and selling beer and concessions, yet the cost to be there and all the other exes means that the traditional bookies will inevitably become replaced by more marketing and computer driven betting. Short-sighted of the race courses, but then again even these are just owned by big companies for whom the racing isn't the most important thing. There may even be more racecourse closures or tote-only betting.
The whole thing will never again what we all knew and it emanates from FOBTs and the GC. If these 2 were gone and racing priced itself a bit lower as a product, we might see something better round the corner.
There were, and always will be, problem gamblers, but the betting industry was in the main an honourable one. The complete takeover by ex-marketing and business studies students, coupled with only very big organisations who don't understand the business they're in have collaborated to ensure a healthy wage for themselves and a few pals, bog all for most of the staff and no real way to bet as we knew it.
Selling off the tote was a bad move too.
A majority of old school gamblers simply don't understand or have the time or patience to use BF and don't realise the rip-off special offers and poor service they are now subjected to.
On-course is just as bad, imo. I have worked with bookies on course and have been to some of the biggest meetings, as well as some very small ones, on many race courses.
The focus is on after racing entertainment and selling beer and concessions, yet the cost to be there and all the other exes means that the traditional bookies will inevitably become replaced by more marketing and computer driven betting. Short-sighted of the race courses, but then again even these are just owned by big companies for whom the racing isn't the most important thing. There may even be more racecourse closures or tote-only betting.
The whole thing will never again what we all knew and it emanates from FOBTs and the GC. If these 2 were gone and racing priced itself a bit lower as a product, we might see something better round the corner.
it all depends on when you started betting how you view the independents Denzil.
When I first started betting my only outlet was the local bookie.
Maximum odds on winning doubles, trebles and etc. Maximum odds of 5/2 a place or 3/1 if a h/cap.
Loads of others that I can't recall. The multis were a breath of fresh air in that respect.
Never been a 'high roller' and obviously they look at them from a different angle.
When I first started betting my only outlet was the local bookie.
Maximum odds on winning doubles, trebles and etc. Maximum odds of 5/2 a place or 3/1 if a h/cap.
Loads of others that I can't recall. The multis were a breath of fresh air in that respect.
Never been a 'high roller' and obviously they look at them from a different angle.
It's been a very long time since independents had limits like that.
Mind you, they needed them at the time because of all the big fiddles that were going on.
Dagenham dogs, forecast trebles, and others. Bookies weren't legalised until 1961 and were seen as shady for at least the 1st 10 years.
Most of the cheating had been stopped by the time the big firms took hold.
The big bookies have rarely taken on high rollers to the same extent that smaller firms do.
They certainly don't now. They even stopped hedging about 15 years ago.
Mind you, they needed them at the time because of all the big fiddles that were going on.
Dagenham dogs, forecast trebles, and others. Bookies weren't legalised until 1961 and were seen as shady for at least the 1st 10 years.
Most of the cheating had been stopped by the time the big firms took hold.
The big bookies have rarely taken on high rollers to the same extent that smaller firms do.
They certainly don't now. They even stopped hedging about 15 years ago.
Have always thought the Tote should've been owned by racing and used as it is in other countries for the benefit of the game it's a complete shambles with ridiculous takeouts and because of this is an underused product,I only use exactas and trifectas regularly once again out of being forced to.
I despite being alot younger than most would think have been betting since I was a child and still consider myself an old school punter especially by todays standards,the exchanges have 0 benefits for someone like myself and are another forced part of my betting life.
I despite being alot younger than most would think have been betting since I was a child and still consider myself an old school punter especially by todays standards,the exchanges have 0 benefits for someone like myself and are another forced part of my betting life.
The problem with the Tote was the management.
McCririck exposed them with the F/c scandal.
McCririck exposed them with the F/c scandal.
There was a good idea by Matt Chapman last time the Tote was coming up for sale and he was trying to get Andy Stewart billionaire owner and may have mentioned Bob Morton also to buy it and run it in a profits back to racing manner,saw an interview with Stewart on Atr next breath Betfred were in and that was that.
I seem to remember that in the beginning the Tote shops didn't take greyhound bets, is that right?
Did they have any other restrictions?
Did they have any other restrictions?
The latest scheme to fleece the unsuspecting is the likes of Chesterbet and Riponbet probably more than those now,the payout is 10% less than bookmakers sp perfect way to rob the party crowds and you can't even bet regular Tote from that meeting not sure if it affects away tracks too there were threads on the subject on HR a while back but didn't read them.
Fobt is extremely addictive
Citation please.
The reason why I'm calling this out is that the Gambling Commission iirc actually try and measure the addictiveness of different types of play, and guess what?
Exchange betting is more addictive than FOBTs. And exchange betting is usually done at home.
Bongo - fraid I'd have to ask for a citation that the GC did a study and found it wasn't more addictive. From what I know, that's something the GC have been at pains not to discover. They use regular studies on gambling activity that have found that the rate of addiction has remained pretty stable and that addicts have tended to use several different products, but I don't think they've ever looked into products to determine if one was more addictive than another.
Citation please.
The reason why I'm calling this out is that the Gambling Commission iirc actually try and measure the addictiveness of different types of play, and guess what?
Exchange betting is more addictive than FOBTs. And exchange betting is usually done at home.
Bongo - fraid I'd have to ask for a citation that the GC did a study and found it wasn't more addictive. From what I know, that's something the GC have been at pains not to discover. They use regular studies on gambling activity that have found that the rate of addiction has remained pretty stable and that addicts have tended to use several different products, but I don't think they've ever looked into products to determine if one was more addictive than another.
'STUDYFORM', it is refreshing and informative to read a post on the effects of fobt from someone closely associated with the industry - my knowledge of fobt is mainly from health professional eg a psychiatrist, lawyer, nurses and friends. Your post is one of the best I've read on the gambling forum. Many thanks.
I fully agree about the cash factor with fobt. For instance, I'd tend to be more careful spending a £20 note (in my hand) than £20 on the card eg 'contactless', and thank-goodness there is a £30 max on it per transaction.
The GC was wrong; fobts is extremely addictive as scientific researchers showed the machine is designed using electronic gadgets and aids eg seductive and subliminal sounds and graphics to activate the parts of the brain associated with addiction.
I fully agree about the cash factor with fobt. For instance, I'd tend to be more careful spending a £20 note (in my hand) than £20 on the card eg 'contactless', and thank-goodness there is a £30 max on it per transaction.
The GC was wrong; fobts is extremely addictive as scientific researchers showed the machine is designed using electronic gadgets and aids eg seductive and subliminal sounds and graphics to activate the parts of the brain associated with addiction.
ids raises point in pmqs today
a government statement to follow regarding date of implementation of the reduced steaks
a government statement to follow regarding date of implementation of the reduced steaks
https://news.sky.com/story/government-to-accelerate-crackdown-on-fixed-odds-...
The government has bowed to pressure to reduce the maximum bet on fixed-odds betting terminals from April.
Ministers had been facing a parliamentary defeat, with several Tory MPs joining opposition politicians to table amendments to the finance bill.
The chancellor said in the Budget the maximum bet would be reduced from £100 to £2 from October.
But that led to accusations of a delay - with sports minister Tracey Crouch resigning in protest.
Several former ministers - including Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith and Justine Greening - tabled amendments designed to force the government to make the change from April.
Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright said: "The government has listened and will now implement the reduction in April 2019."
Ms Crouch said she was pleased that "common sense" had prevailed.
The government had earlier said it had consulted widely and considered "all of the evidence" before making its decision on a timeframe.
Ministers had been facing a parliamentary defeat, with several Tory MPs joining opposition politicians to table amendments to the finance bill.
The chancellor said in the Budget the maximum bet would be reduced from £100 to £2 from October.
But that led to accusations of a delay - with sports minister Tracey Crouch resigning in protest.
Several former ministers - including Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith and Justine Greening - tabled amendments designed to force the government to make the change from April.
Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright said: "The government has listened and will now implement the reduction in April 2019."
Ms Crouch said she was pleased that "common sense" had prevailed.
The government had earlier said it had consulted widely and considered "all of the evidence" before making its decision on a timeframe.
Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright said: "The government has listened and will now implement the reduction in April 2019."
I wonder if the Govt has listened to the majority of the people who voted for Brexit, and implement it by leaving ?
I wonder if the Govt has listened to the majority of the people who voted for Brexit, and implement it by leaving ?
impossible123, Thank you, I was up way too late, so your response justifies it.
akabula, not through age, but through wisdom and learning, I can tell you that loads of restrictions applied to early betting shops.
There were 2 horse meetings a day (no coverage of Irish racing) and 4 on a Saturday. The only dogs were Saturday mornings from Hackney wick.
Not far from where I grew up, as it happens, so as a kid I would have been there with my parents quite often.
Then in the 70's occasional dog meetings were added in the afternoons.
The main greyhound betting was forecast doubles overnight - mostly 1+2 or 6+5 ttc at loads of tracks which are now shut down.
There were huge limits on dog bets, much of it emanates from the Dagenham dog track coup (which I'll be tell you about if you're interested).
1000/1 limit for f/c doubles was most common.
Yet the bookies made plenty, there were just a few races a day, expenses were low, tax was raised, and there were actually more betting shops than there are now.
The industry policed itself very well - no under 18's, no promoting of gambling, no adverts, open from 10 -6.30 in the summer (by law) even if there was night racing.
Closed by 4.30 in the winter.
Anyway most of the old time punters are now dead, and their replacements think that betting is 5 horse meetings, loads of football, 7 dog meetings. machines, numbers, lotteries, cartoons, noise.
I can't see how it will ever be changed back and made more relaxed.
Today's return to the April reduction to £2 is a very good thing.
There's no doubt, though that there will be attempts made by the big firms to circumvent this change but developing alternative quick gambling ideas.
We can only hope none work.
akabula, not through age, but through wisdom and learning, I can tell you that loads of restrictions applied to early betting shops.
There were 2 horse meetings a day (no coverage of Irish racing) and 4 on a Saturday. The only dogs were Saturday mornings from Hackney wick.
Not far from where I grew up, as it happens, so as a kid I would have been there with my parents quite often.
Then in the 70's occasional dog meetings were added in the afternoons.
The main greyhound betting was forecast doubles overnight - mostly 1+2 or 6+5 ttc at loads of tracks which are now shut down.
There were huge limits on dog bets, much of it emanates from the Dagenham dog track coup (which I'll be tell you about if you're interested).
1000/1 limit for f/c doubles was most common.
Yet the bookies made plenty, there were just a few races a day, expenses were low, tax was raised, and there were actually more betting shops than there are now.
The industry policed itself very well - no under 18's, no promoting of gambling, no adverts, open from 10 -6.30 in the summer (by law) even if there was night racing.
Closed by 4.30 in the winter.
Anyway most of the old time punters are now dead, and their replacements think that betting is 5 horse meetings, loads of football, 7 dog meetings. machines, numbers, lotteries, cartoons, noise.
I can't see how it will ever be changed back and made more relaxed.
Today's return to the April reduction to £2 is a very good thing.
There's no doubt, though that there will be attempts made by the big firms to circumvent this change but developing alternative quick gambling ideas.
We can only hope none work.
for some reason I always thought you were a northerner, studyform, turns out you're from 'Ackney
@PorcupineorPineappple
From
.
http://live-gamblecom.cloud.contensis.com/PDF/survey-data/Gambling-behaviour-in-Great-Britain-2015.pdf
The highest rates of problem gambling were among those who had participated in spread betting (20.1%), betting via a betting exchange (16.2%), playing poker in pubs or clubs (15.9%), betting offline on events other than sports or horse or dog racing (15.5%) and playing machines in bookmakers (11.5%).
What we do seem to know, and I think you said it too, is that the rate of problem gambling hasn't budged in years despite the major increase in FOBT turnover. There is no reason to suppose then that the rate or problem gambling will reduce then when FOBTs are prohibited for practical purposes. You haven't cured the gambler, dealt with his loneliness, relationships or compulsive behaviours by banning his idea of a bit of fun. All you've done is move the problem around, and imposed a cost on personal freedom ( some people who play FOBTs don't have a problem and say they enjoy it believe it or not ), and on jobs and tax receipts.
Sadly, most of the British public think that banning something that they don't do themselves delivers net gains to society, and don't care that the outcomes they want will not materialise.
From
.
http://live-gamblecom.cloud.contensis.com/PDF/survey-data/Gambling-behaviour-in-Great-Britain-2015.pdf
The highest rates of problem gambling were among those who had participated in spread betting (20.1%), betting via a betting exchange (16.2%), playing poker in pubs or clubs (15.9%), betting offline on events other than sports or horse or dog racing (15.5%) and playing machines in bookmakers (11.5%).
What we do seem to know, and I think you said it too, is that the rate of problem gambling hasn't budged in years despite the major increase in FOBT turnover. There is no reason to suppose then that the rate or problem gambling will reduce then when FOBTs are prohibited for practical purposes. You haven't cured the gambler, dealt with his loneliness, relationships or compulsive behaviours by banning his idea of a bit of fun. All you've done is move the problem around, and imposed a cost on personal freedom ( some people who play FOBTs don't have a problem and say they enjoy it believe it or not ), and on jobs and tax receipts.
Sadly, most of the British public think that banning something that they don't do themselves delivers net gains to society, and don't care that the outcomes they want will not materialise.
to be fair its likely problem gamblers have tried the lot.
these fobt have created a new problem and maybe their damage
is already done. hitting folk who had previously not become problem
gamblers .
doubless there will be folk who will still encounter problems.
good luck to the bookies when old jack writes out 250 x 20p bets on the first
race at brighton, to replace his scattergun roulette technique.
these fobt have created a new problem and maybe their damage
is already done. hitting folk who had previously not become problem
gamblers .
doubless there will be folk who will still encounter problems.
good luck to the bookies when old jack writes out 250 x 20p bets on the first
race at brighton, to replace his scattergun roulette technique.
Not exactly a fair comparison, the reason why more people are more likely to 'be addicted' to online exchanges is simply because you can access them 24 hours a day without even leaving your bed, so it stands to reason if you can have quick and unrestricted access to a service it will attract more people and thus more addicts, if everyone has access to a FOBT in their bedroom what do you think the % would be then? but they're not in every household. Seems to me you're far more interested in your own pocket then the lives of people whose lives have been ruined by these machines.
Also, as impossible said, The GC was wrong; fobts is extremely addictive as scientific researchers showed the machine is designed using electronic gadgets and aids eg seductive and subliminal sounds and graphics to activate the parts of the brain associated with addiction.
Also, as impossible said, The GC was wrong; fobts is extremely addictive as scientific researchers showed the machine is designed using electronic gadgets and aids eg seductive and subliminal sounds and graphics to activate the parts of the brain associated with addiction.
I couldn't disagree more with most of that, bongo.
In the first place, these "surveys" are basically flawed, not least because:
A. Bookies (big firms) play down the amounts, levels and times people spend on the FOBTs
B. Gamblers aren't honest with themselves or their families, let alone survey questions - there is a lot of denial.
Secondly, the numbers of people playing the machines are far greater than those who use spread betting or casinos, particularly those who can't really afford to gamble at the levels they do.
I am absolutely certain that if you asked people who play these things, even on a regular basis (and it IS something I've done) if they'd like to see the machines banned, they would nearly all say YES!
The machines aren't wanted or needed by anyone except bookies, who don't appreciate that they are in large part "substitution" for money which would otherwise come over the counter, and the suppliers of the machines themselves, and to a lesser extent the government who don't realise that much of the money which comes in via duty on the machines will still come in as duty from alternative, slower, less painful, forms of gambling.
Betting shops already serve the gambler's desire to gamble. When there used to be only 12 races a day, betting shops won money, the tax office earned money, people lost money and there were people who got into lots of trouble and were "problem gamblers", just as there were before 1961 and from time immemorial.
Therein lies the problem about FOBTs:
*They are fast.
*They deal in high stakes - usually much higher than people would usually play
*They are uncheckable - again I could go into bigger detail. There are claims and independent verification organisations (based in the Netherlands) but fundamentally, everyone STILL has to take that as true.
*There is a repeat bet button, and in some cases a 'double bet' button, neither of which exists in real roulette. In the real game you have to start from scratch each spin.
*The marketing campaigns the big firms run encourage FOBT play. They want people on them and it's cynical.
FOBTs are more damaging, more quickly, than any other form of readily available gambling.
I watched a bloke once playing £100 a spin, he'd put about £500 in and started winning. He got it up to £9,400. He wouldn't stop. He wanted to get to £10,000 (The limit, by the way, which is inexplicable, why would a firm whose maximum payout is £1 million limit machine winnings to £10,000? They don't limit losses), anyway within an hour he was at zero. and getting the feeling, as players do, that he would get it back because these things "even out", he lost another £2000 from a credit card he'd just got - from a bank's cashpoint.
If you're unsure, just go into ANY betting shop, try a few different ones, and watch people play these machines.
Watch the almost maniacal delight as they are in front.
Watch them talk to themselves and the machines - saying "thank you" when they win for example.
Watch their faces
Watch them press the button in different ways or do things like turning round or trying "different" things, none of which do anything.
Speak - unofficially - to members of betting shop staff. ALL of them will back up what I'm saying
The veracity of surveys by organisations which are funded by the bookmakers (via the GC) should be considered.
The dozens of ridiculous statements by the ABB (Association of British Bookmakers) should be closely examined.
They made some incredibly doubtful claims, like the size of the average play being (if memory serves) about £2 and people spending just a few minutes on average, playing the machines. A downright lie. If this was the case, why would they be bothered with the reduction with maximum stake?
People generally play them until they run out of money, or are a substantial amount in front and need to be somewhere else. Then they bring it back next day anyway.
I am in NO doubt whatsoever, having been very much involved with these things and having worked with, and spoken to, many others who have done the same, that they are the most dangerous and addictive form of gambling available.
I have been addicted to FOBTs. I have been in loads of trouble because of them in my time, and that isn't even just roulette. Even now, I still feel the occasional urge.
It isn't like fruit machines.
Many years ago, I'd play these at the local Snooker hall for £150 jackpot and lose my wages. but it took many hours. This was still bad and couldn't harm as many people as FOBTs do, as only 2 machines were allowed and they had to be in members only club - including casinos. I'd play them in pubs. Most anti-social of me!
But now, I don't have the remotest desire to play on them.
FOBT's are not the same as slot machines.
People who don't play them don't get it. What members of the public in general think is of no consequence if they don't know about the subject and have no experience of it.
It is very easy to say, "no-one makes people play them, it's a matter of choice" for those who've never even seen an FOBT, but that simply isn't right.
Although I've written loads, there is stuff left out, but I couldn't be more certain than I am.
FOBTs are VERY BAD and should be banned.
In the first place, these "surveys" are basically flawed, not least because:
A. Bookies (big firms) play down the amounts, levels and times people spend on the FOBTs
B. Gamblers aren't honest with themselves or their families, let alone survey questions - there is a lot of denial.
Secondly, the numbers of people playing the machines are far greater than those who use spread betting or casinos, particularly those who can't really afford to gamble at the levels they do.
I am absolutely certain that if you asked people who play these things, even on a regular basis (and it IS something I've done) if they'd like to see the machines banned, they would nearly all say YES!
The machines aren't wanted or needed by anyone except bookies, who don't appreciate that they are in large part "substitution" for money which would otherwise come over the counter, and the suppliers of the machines themselves, and to a lesser extent the government who don't realise that much of the money which comes in via duty on the machines will still come in as duty from alternative, slower, less painful, forms of gambling.
Betting shops already serve the gambler's desire to gamble. When there used to be only 12 races a day, betting shops won money, the tax office earned money, people lost money and there were people who got into lots of trouble and were "problem gamblers", just as there were before 1961 and from time immemorial.
Therein lies the problem about FOBTs:
*They are fast.
*They deal in high stakes - usually much higher than people would usually play
*They are uncheckable - again I could go into bigger detail. There are claims and independent verification organisations (based in the Netherlands) but fundamentally, everyone STILL has to take that as true.
*There is a repeat bet button, and in some cases a 'double bet' button, neither of which exists in real roulette. In the real game you have to start from scratch each spin.
*The marketing campaigns the big firms run encourage FOBT play. They want people on them and it's cynical.
FOBTs are more damaging, more quickly, than any other form of readily available gambling.
I watched a bloke once playing £100 a spin, he'd put about £500 in and started winning. He got it up to £9,400. He wouldn't stop. He wanted to get to £10,000 (The limit, by the way, which is inexplicable, why would a firm whose maximum payout is £1 million limit machine winnings to £10,000? They don't limit losses), anyway within an hour he was at zero. and getting the feeling, as players do, that he would get it back because these things "even out", he lost another £2000 from a credit card he'd just got - from a bank's cashpoint.
If you're unsure, just go into ANY betting shop, try a few different ones, and watch people play these machines.
Watch the almost maniacal delight as they are in front.
Watch them talk to themselves and the machines - saying "thank you" when they win for example.
Watch their faces
Watch them press the button in different ways or do things like turning round or trying "different" things, none of which do anything.
Speak - unofficially - to members of betting shop staff. ALL of them will back up what I'm saying
The veracity of surveys by organisations which are funded by the bookmakers (via the GC) should be considered.
The dozens of ridiculous statements by the ABB (Association of British Bookmakers) should be closely examined.
They made some incredibly doubtful claims, like the size of the average play being (if memory serves) about £2 and people spending just a few minutes on average, playing the machines. A downright lie. If this was the case, why would they be bothered with the reduction with maximum stake?
People generally play them until they run out of money, or are a substantial amount in front and need to be somewhere else. Then they bring it back next day anyway.
I am in NO doubt whatsoever, having been very much involved with these things and having worked with, and spoken to, many others who have done the same, that they are the most dangerous and addictive form of gambling available.
I have been addicted to FOBTs. I have been in loads of trouble because of them in my time, and that isn't even just roulette. Even now, I still feel the occasional urge.
It isn't like fruit machines.
Many years ago, I'd play these at the local Snooker hall for £150 jackpot and lose my wages. but it took many hours. This was still bad and couldn't harm as many people as FOBTs do, as only 2 machines were allowed and they had to be in members only club - including casinos. I'd play them in pubs. Most anti-social of me!
But now, I don't have the remotest desire to play on them.
FOBT's are not the same as slot machines.
People who don't play them don't get it. What members of the public in general think is of no consequence if they don't know about the subject and have no experience of it.
It is very easy to say, "no-one makes people play them, it's a matter of choice" for those who've never even seen an FOBT, but that simply isn't right.
Although I've written loads, there is stuff left out, but I couldn't be more certain than I am.
FOBTs are VERY BAD and should be banned.
bongo - we are talking about the same studies. In my opinion, they were aimed at detecting levels of addiction but their approach towards detecting problematic products was at best flawed, at worst maybe deliberately uninterested.
The basically asked people questions about level of gambling activity, attitudes etc and then asked how many products they used. I don't think they've ever done it from a product-centred view. Where they've got data from both shops and online bookies and looked at rates of play, re-loading etc. It's always been a reactive process. We presume it's ok, till we find out a bookie has failed in his conditions and then we fine the sods.
But if we were solely to rely on that study then we'd be inundated with stories of addicts moaning about spreads or playing poker with their case, which is plainly absurd.
Seem to have got a lot tougher under the last chief exec though, and some Channel Islands bingo firm has just been given a huge fine so it looks like they've grown some teeth.
The basically asked people questions about level of gambling activity, attitudes etc and then asked how many products they used. I don't think they've ever done it from a product-centred view. Where they've got data from both shops and online bookies and looked at rates of play, re-loading etc. It's always been a reactive process. We presume it's ok, till we find out a bookie has failed in his conditions and then we fine the sods.
But if we were solely to rely on that study then we'd be inundated with stories of addicts moaning about spreads or playing poker with their case, which is plainly absurd.
Seem to have got a lot tougher under the last chief exec though, and some Channel Islands bingo firm has just been given a huge fine so it looks like they've grown some teeth.
Personally, I would ban these machines plus those in pubs and whilst I'm at it, the national lottery and euromillions, but my point is, when are people going to start taking responsibility for their own actions?
Utility companies bribe people by getting them to put X amount of money per month into their savings accounts just to make sure people are in credit. Most people do because they are either lazy or are not competent enough to look after their own finances, when what they should be doing is leaving the money in their own accounts and wait for the paper bill. The same goes with council tax. People are lazy and want somebody else to look after them.
Now a man smokes cigarettes, a few years later, he contacts cancer. Who's fault is that? The man with cancer, knowing full well what could happen to him or the tobacco company who have a product to sell?
Now a man drinks alcohol, a few years later, he contacts cirrhosis. Who's fault is that? The man with cirrhosis, knowing full well what could happen to him or the breweries who have a product to sell?
It's the same choice with these fobts, a man has a choice wether to play them or not. Win or lose, that's the risk, he knows that before he plays them, he also knows that he's more likely to lose. What drives him to use these machines is the same thing that drives people to bet on horses or blackjack and I've seen people losing their pay packets and more playing horses and cards, and that is Greed.
The sooner people start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming other people or looking for a scapegoat, the better.
Utility companies bribe people by getting them to put X amount of money per month into their savings accounts just to make sure people are in credit. Most people do because they are either lazy or are not competent enough to look after their own finances, when what they should be doing is leaving the money in their own accounts and wait for the paper bill. The same goes with council tax. People are lazy and want somebody else to look after them.
Now a man smokes cigarettes, a few years later, he contacts cancer. Who's fault is that? The man with cancer, knowing full well what could happen to him or the tobacco company who have a product to sell?
Now a man drinks alcohol, a few years later, he contacts cirrhosis. Who's fault is that? The man with cirrhosis, knowing full well what could happen to him or the breweries who have a product to sell?
It's the same choice with these fobts, a man has a choice wether to play them or not. Win or lose, that's the risk, he knows that before he plays them, he also knows that he's more likely to lose. What drives him to use these machines is the same thing that drives people to bet on horses or blackjack and I've seen people losing their pay packets and more playing horses and cards, and that is Greed.
The sooner people start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming other people or looking for a scapegoat, the better.
there are some people who do not have the capability to take responsibility for their own actions.
twonky, it would, as you say, be great if they did. and education, (not just school education) would be a
massive step forward in many cases. lottery is a good example where misleading adverts sell a dream
..it could be you!
energy companies are another great point with folk being put onto overpayment, and some onto
underpayment so the company can manipulate their client base. i get 2 readings per year and then
they go off into some guff about altering my payments....luckily i can calculate how much i need
to pay per month, and a phone call or visit to the website can resolve my issue.
i see so many others who accept , without question, their new bill and end up in a bad place.
then we have folk who blindly renew their insurance policies, and service contracts....doing so
almost always leads to a bad deal, and spending money that does not require to be spent.
the likes of martin lewis , watchdog, and others try to educate folk, ...but many of the folk
that need help the most are those that never have any contact with those people because they
have not been educated to see they will help them
fobt have systematically milked folk that either didnt know better or should have known better,
and reducing steak to £2 will still need to be monitored alongside lots of other things.
twonky, it would, as you say, be great if they did. and education, (not just school education) would be a
massive step forward in many cases. lottery is a good example where misleading adverts sell a dream
..it could be you!
energy companies are another great point with folk being put onto overpayment, and some onto
underpayment so the company can manipulate their client base. i get 2 readings per year and then
they go off into some guff about altering my payments....luckily i can calculate how much i need
to pay per month, and a phone call or visit to the website can resolve my issue.
i see so many others who accept , without question, their new bill and end up in a bad place.
then we have folk who blindly renew their insurance policies, and service contracts....doing so
almost always leads to a bad deal, and spending money that does not require to be spent.
the likes of martin lewis , watchdog, and others try to educate folk, ...but many of the folk
that need help the most are those that never have any contact with those people because they
have not been educated to see they will help them
fobt have systematically milked folk that either didnt know better or should have known better,
and reducing steak to £2 will still need to be monitored alongside lots of other things.
it's like scummy bookmakers who deliberately target poor areas to open up their shops in, knowing full well poor people generally make poorer decisions and are more desperate to win money, what about the responsibility of the bookie not to be morally bankrupt by tempting those less well off?
We are all built differently thus some of us are more susceptible to some temptations in life whilst others are not; these are usually governed by the environment we are brought up in; worked in; socialised in, but most important of all the chemical composition in our body and brain. These (imbalances) would be to be addressed organically and externally (thro' education, reform, etc) prior to a cure which the individual concerned cannot achieve on their own.
The notion that people need to take responsibility of their actions sometimes do not apply, and playing fobt is one example, I firmly believe; when one's brain plays games with oneself there is nothing one can do except respond accordingly eg mental health. Sad but true. and must be recognised.
The notion that people need to take responsibility of their actions sometimes do not apply, and playing fobt is one example, I firmly believe; when one's brain plays games with oneself there is nothing one can do except respond accordingly eg mental health. Sad but true. and must be recognised.
The difference for me, twonky, is the speed and amount of addictive behaviour on the FOBTs.
To use your examples.
It's like tobacco companies even longer, stronger cigarettes, and marketing and putting incentives in all supermarkets and sweetshops saying that people should be smoking 60 a day.
Or The utility companies telling you to leave all the lights on and the taps running to maximise income.
Some people need help, assistance and guidance. This doesn't mean anyone is actually telling them what to do.
I disagree with you about choice though.
The pull and addiction of FOBTs is stronger than any for the other forms of betting you mention.
Of course there is still the loss of pay packets and trouble people get themselves into through all forms of gambling, it's just these things do it much more, much more quickly, and quite importantly the big betting firms encourage new players into hard gambling with ruthless and unscrupulous methods.
One more quick story.
I managed to get the roulette content removed from my FOBTs, after loads of grief and loads of publicity, and 2 young blokes came into the shop, trying to play roulette.
I explained that it had been removed because of the problems I've seen it caused.
So they asked, "How do you put a bet on dogs then?" As they could see the papers n the walls and the lived dogs on screen.
I explained about 'Win' 'Each-way' and 'forecasts' and how to read the form. Then they put a few bets on - small bets, 50p and £1 bets and they had a lovely time, enjoying the races and laying out far less than they would have on the machines.
Unfortunately they were a bit unlucky and couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo. But it was still a cheap(ish) hour of entertainment and far more fun than pressing a button on games of (apparent) chance.
To use your examples.
It's like tobacco companies even longer, stronger cigarettes, and marketing and putting incentives in all supermarkets and sweetshops saying that people should be smoking 60 a day.
Or The utility companies telling you to leave all the lights on and the taps running to maximise income.
Some people need help, assistance and guidance. This doesn't mean anyone is actually telling them what to do.
I disagree with you about choice though.
The pull and addiction of FOBTs is stronger than any for the other forms of betting you mention.
Of course there is still the loss of pay packets and trouble people get themselves into through all forms of gambling, it's just these things do it much more, much more quickly, and quite importantly the big betting firms encourage new players into hard gambling with ruthless and unscrupulous methods.
One more quick story.
I managed to get the roulette content removed from my FOBTs, after loads of grief and loads of publicity, and 2 young blokes came into the shop, trying to play roulette.
I explained that it had been removed because of the problems I've seen it caused.
So they asked, "How do you put a bet on dogs then?" As they could see the papers n the walls and the lived dogs on screen.
I explained about 'Win' 'Each-way' and 'forecasts' and how to read the form. Then they put a few bets on - small bets, 50p and £1 bets and they had a lovely time, enjoying the races and laying out far less than they would have on the machines.
Unfortunately they were a bit unlucky and couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo. But it was still a cheap(ish) hour of entertainment and far more fun than pressing a button on games of (apparent) chance.
There were huge limits on dog bets, much of it emanates from the Dagenham dog track coup (which I'll be tell you about if you're interested).
I googled it SF. Quite a coup but I thought this bit was unlikely:
They placed over 11,000 bets on the two outsiders
I googled it SF. Quite a coup but I thought this bit was unlikely:
They placed over 11,000 bets on the two outsiders
I just googled it too.
Quite proud of my recollection of the tale. Except I remembered it as £988 11/9d (a pound out).
What wasn't mentioned in the wiki thing I read about it was that there was quite a bit of menace involved.
There were quite a few in the gang, partly blocking the tote windows and some asking people what they were going to bet on, and if they said the numbers that were likely to win, they were told "no you're fckin' not mate, you're going to back...." (the losing numbers).
Until then bookies paid out on tote forecasts. Which is why the limits were brought in, then slightly later, the chart was developed and forecasts were based on SPs. Much later and it's all CSF (Computer straight forecast). No-one knows the formula used for that, or how it's calculated.
Quite proud of my recollection of the tale. Except I remembered it as £988 11/9d (a pound out).
What wasn't mentioned in the wiki thing I read about it was that there was quite a bit of menace involved.
There were quite a few in the gang, partly blocking the tote windows and some asking people what they were going to bet on, and if they said the numbers that were likely to win, they were told "no you're fckin' not mate, you're going to back...." (the losing numbers).
Until then bookies paid out on tote forecasts. Which is why the limits were brought in, then slightly later, the chart was developed and forecasts were based on SPs. Much later and it's all CSF (Computer straight forecast). No-one knows the formula used for that, or how it's calculated.
Great read that Study.One instance of the destructiveness of these machines i remember was a few years back when my golfing partner and ex footballer popped into my shop for a chat and a cuppa.He had gotten married the previous week and was due to go to the Maldives the next day on his honeymoon.Unfortunately he was totally addicted to the fobs.In the course of a couple of hours he proceeded to lose all of his 2k honeymoon spending money despite me pleading with him to stop.At one stage i unplugged the machine but he threatened me unless i turned it back on.
He left the shop in floods of tears that afternoon a broken man and it was extremely distressing to witness.
He left the shop in floods of tears that afternoon a broken man and it was extremely distressing to witness.
I would think that is a scene repeated in every shop in the country, twizzle.
And that's what people don't realise, or worse, believe.
A mate of mine was working in a shop where a bloke lost about £4,000 in a couple of hours. Apparently the bloke cashed out for £5, popped out of the shop and to nearby junk shop and bought a claw hammer. Which he used to smash the machine up.
No-one from head office was particularly bothered, they said it would cost them a few hundred to fix, and that was fine as they had £4000 to play with.
And that's what people don't realise, or worse, believe.
A mate of mine was working in a shop where a bloke lost about £4,000 in a couple of hours. Apparently the bloke cashed out for £5, popped out of the shop and to nearby junk shop and bought a claw hammer. Which he used to smash the machine up.
No-one from head office was particularly bothered, they said it would cost them a few hundred to fix, and that was fine as they had £4000 to play with.
For all of these unhappy tales,
i wonder how many happy ones there are
i wonder how many happy ones there are
a mate of mine won 250 grand on deal or no deal on ladbokes website.
went from to 50p lucky 15 punter to a £10 lucky 15 punter.
went from having £10 on to have £500 on singles.
done it all back within two years
went from to 50p lucky 15 punter to a £10 lucky 15 punter.
went from having £10 on to have £500 on singles.
done it all back within two years
That's the point, starship.
Once a 50p punter becomes a £10 punter, putting on 50p to win a fiver is no longer a thrill.
FOBTs make this change happen very quickly and there aren't so many happy tales, because of the £500 maximum win limit.
Once a 50p punter becomes a £10 punter, putting on 50p to win a fiver is no longer a thrill.
FOBTs make this change happen very quickly and there aren't so many happy tales, because of the £500 maximum win limit.
I popped into William Hills one morning about 11 am to collect a Rugby Bet and there was a Postman from the Royal Mail in full uniform playing a Roulette Machine with a full bag of Mail alongside him !! Incredible
RLKP well at least he's got a job - better than walking the streets!
wont have a job for much longer if streets of people are phoning up at 5pm asking where their mail is
A friend whose business partner is the father of a former Arsenal number 9 in the late 80's and 90's; number 9 was a prolific gambler so much so he was repeatedly asking for sub from club and borrowing from teammates; number 9 would even ask my friend to put bets on for him on tick until pay day; number 9 was making about £3k per week then (I believe); he blew that plus his share of the transfer fees on gambling, drugs and alcohol. And that was before fobt were on the scene otherwise a declared bankrupt for sure.
Now a pundit at Sky.
Now a pundit at Sky.
One of the boys who'll still be allowed on what he wants like the rest of them.
Said No9 once called (early days of mobile phones) a bookie acquaintance of mine while he was playing golf - apparently annoying the bloke who was putting.
He asked, "What's the next race?"
reply, "3.59 Monmore"
"What's the favourite?"
"Trap 5, 2/1"
"I'll have £300 on it"
It lost. Not that the result mattered, he had no interest on the race at all, couldn't see or hear it, and what he did transcends mere betting.
He asked, "What's the next race?"
reply, "3.59 Monmore"
"What's the favourite?"
"Trap 5, 2/1"
"I'll have £300 on it"
It lost. Not that the result mattered, he had no interest on the race at all, couldn't see or hear it, and what he did transcends mere betting.
It's another abuse they've set upon themselves have known people of similar ilk,obviously in his case it was with what is alot of money to most but at the end of the day it's all relative.
I'm guessing the golf would have been for money too, Capt.
I like a bet, but I think it's at least a bit more interesting to see or hear the race, or even watch the markets move, live.
I like a bet, but I think it's at least a bit more interesting to see or hear the race, or even watch the markets move, live.
Number 9 before his football took off used to help out shifting coal bags to customers; number 9 was so bored post training session each weekday (latest 11am) any activity would do just to fill the time. And paralytic on a fri prior to sat game was frowned upon by manager nevertheless, still managed to wrap his Bimmer in a tree once, if memory served.
Another one was a former England and West Ham player with the intials AD; used to pop into local bookie regularly before setting off to Brentford; friendly and unassuming chap.
Another one was a former England and West Ham player with the intials AD; used to pop into local bookie regularly before setting off to Brentford; friendly and unassuming chap.
i went to a golf tournament in the 80s
popped into on course bookies for tax free betting.
a well known snooker pro not born in great britain was in bookies
far more interesting than watching golf, and i thought a hurricane was going to
be unleashed as a stewards enquiry tied up his winnings on big sprint at york
an arrangement was hastily arranged where by he could bet on hypothetical winnings
should horse keep race.....it did....i dont think he had anything left by time stewards finnished!
popped into on course bookies for tax free betting.
a well known snooker pro not born in great britain was in bookies
far more interesting than watching golf, and i thought a hurricane was going to
be unleashed as a stewards enquiry tied up his winnings on big sprint at york
an arrangement was hastily arranged where by he could bet on hypothetical winnings
should horse keep race.....it did....i dont think he had anything left by time stewards finnished!
Steve Claridge (parliamentary priv) used to hold his face cm's from screen screaming !
what a nob
what a nob
As an Orient fan, I used to go to all home games, and walking to the match on a Saturday at about 2.30 or even just after, would see on of our stars, and ex-England player with the unusual name of Stan, just leaving Billy hills. I'm guessing he'd get into the changing room with his shirt already unbuttoned and with about 2 minutes to get changed.
I think then avid followers of gambling from the Britain Isles could form their own football team and still be more successful than their respective national team eg Arsenal number 9, Arsenal number 6, West Ham number 6, QPR number 10, Man Utd number 7, etc.
Actually, to be fair, most of them could afford to have a bet, so why not.
I mean, ffs, I'm a bookie! To be fairer, I wish I'd had more footballers betting with me.
I mean, ffs, I'm a bookie! To be fairer, I wish I'd had more footballers betting with me.
lets face it, everyone on here is a gambling addict, whether you win on gambling or not. so lets not get all preachy about fotb addicts.
a well known snooker pro not born in great britain was in bookies
far more interesting than watching golf, and i thought a hurricane was going to
be unleashed as a stewards enquiry tied up his winnings on big sprint at york
wasn't alex Higgins from northern Ireland?
far more interesting than watching golf, and i thought a hurricane was going to
be unleashed as a stewards enquiry tied up his winnings on big sprint at york
wasn't alex Higgins from northern Ireland?
he was indeed
great britain is an island, scotland, england and wales
great britain is an island, scotland, england and wales
ok slightly confusing reference anyway. why not just say it's alex Higgins?
united kingdom includes northern ireland
great britain does not
great britain does not
because folk were saying arsenal no9 and stuff like that
just carrying on the pattern
you knew who it was!
just carrying on the pattern
you knew who it was!
Amazing how many adults do not know the difference between Great Britain and United Kingdom
scandanavian_haven
17 Nov 18 23:03
Joined: 27 May 11 | Topic/replies: 8,773 | Blogger: scandanavian_haven's blog
Amazing how many adults do not know the difference between Great Britain and United Kingdom
must admit never thought deeply about it before
I saw niall quinn in a betting shop once. he asked the cashier to turn up the tv, quite right as it was inaudible.
Nov 17, 2018 -- 4:51PM, lewisham ranger wrote:
lets face it, everyone on here is a gambling addict, whether you win on gambling or not. so lets not get all preachy about fotb addicts.
No-one getting preachy about FOBT addicts.
Just about the machines. Which should all be destroyed.
Just ignore 'lewisham ranger', the poster is a timewaster and non-receptive to any differing views; got the poster on ignore for several years now.
I seem to remember seeing his name before - on the more radical politico etc, threads.
Another of the people who use forum for a "purpose"
Another of the people who use forum for a "purpose"
"let's face it, anyone on here is a gambling addict, whether you win on gambling or not. So let's not get all preachy about fobt addicts"
I cannot see the above post or any of the poster's posts as the poster is on ignore, and it would not surprise me if the poster frequent more radical political threads given the narcissistic definitive opinion and judgement reflected in the above post.
I'm a regular here, and The Exchange and frequently take positions on prestigious antepost races mainly Group and Graded pitting my wits and horsey knowledge against the industry traders and professional pundits/tipsters. But I'd never say I'm a gambling addict (and I'm not in denial) courtesy of my upbringing, work ethos and understanding of the chances of winning and vagaries of betting; grateful and pure luck.
Horse betting is just a hobby sometimes a taxing one for fear of the traders getting one over me, but it is fun; vindication is key, reward is a bonus; a loss is an education.
I cannot see the above post or any of the poster's posts as the poster is on ignore, and it would not surprise me if the poster frequent more radical political threads given the narcissistic definitive opinion and judgement reflected in the above post.
I'm a regular here, and The Exchange and frequently take positions on prestigious antepost races mainly Group and Graded pitting my wits and horsey knowledge against the industry traders and professional pundits/tipsters. But I'd never say I'm a gambling addict (and I'm not in denial) courtesy of my upbringing, work ethos and understanding of the chances of winning and vagaries of betting; grateful and pure luck.
Horse betting is just a hobby sometimes a taxing one for fear of the traders getting one over me, but it is fun; vindication is key, reward is a bonus; a loss is an education.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539