Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
19 Mar 18
14:01
Joined:
Date Joined:
02 Mar 08
seemingly the threshold for problem gambling starts at £30 a spin so limit should be under £30
but will folk still be allowed to play more than one machine at a time?
should keep everybody happy until the next report finds £30 every 20 seconds still leads to problems.
still, a step in the right direction.
but will folk still be allowed to play more than one machine at a time?
should keep everybody happy until the next report finds £30 every 20 seconds still leads to problems.
still, a step in the right direction.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 27
|
By:
Absolute Farce Donny , they should never have been allowed in shops ,if want Machines in a shop then put them in an Arcade
is the Problem the Same in arcades ? Dont seem to hear much about them ... Tbh there is Little need for Betting shops the Only serious punters using them are those restricted online using teams of Runners to place bets ... |
|
By:
The Gambling Commission are not fit for purpose. The government need to look beyond a few jobs losses at the bookies and focus on the costs of the ruined lives and broken homes of addicts. These machines were 100% designed to exploit the weaknesses of gambling addicts and gamblers generally. Tragic!
|
|
By:
Whilst only a recommendation I'm sure the final figure will be £30.
Should never have been allowed in the first place but now a problem doing away with them as it would put loads out of a job. |
|
By:
But the money not lost in the FOBTs will be spent somewhere else , creating jobs and tax in other areas, without possibly the other social costs of the FOBTS.
|
|
By:
Don't disagree with that JTG but what I posted will be on their minds hence the £30 limit which I don't think will help problem gamblers.
Remember reading about how many betting shops would close if FOBTs were banned altogether. Might not be a bad things in some areas. Leith Walk in Edinburgh has 8 I think. |
|
By:
£30 is a massive number given you could still lose thousands an hour.
Surely it is the design of the machines that is the problem rather than the limits IF they are addictive? |
|
By:
I think the government will set it at £20.
They won't want to be seen setting it at the maximum recommended amount, so will set it at £20, then go on Newsnight etc , and put on their caring voices, whilst looking smug. |
|
By:
if betfair opened a market on it we would find the answer in minutes by watching the odds....
|
|
By:
Not sure how these Fbots work but my understanding is they are programmed to take money off people?
I mean does an Fbot ever lose money? Does anybody ever get banned for winning too much money off an Fbot? It really is shocking and even more so it is like people lining up to be robbed by Dick Turnip! What is even more shocking is that this theft is legal! |
|
By:
The Gambling Commission is a joke and is working in cahoots with the big firms.
So many crap stories are put out by their marketing departments too! No jobs will be lost. They've already cut staff because these poxy things have taken nearly all the over the counter money. £30 is towards the lower end of what the biggest players and chasers spend a spin anyway. It would change nothing. They aren't programmed, whisperingdeath, there are billions of numbers a second generated in a remote server (no-one knows where it is) one of which, supposedly, appears after a 15 second animation of a ball spinning when the play button is pressed. Trying to find anything out about the way the FOBTs are really run and seeing the, again supposed, independent checks done on each game, is just about impossible. I have seen people win, in the short term, it can't be controlled or hedged, so not being busy but having a big consistent winner can close an independent betting shop. I have heard tales of people being banned - but it would still be a rare occurrence. The way they work and appear makes them addictive. People cannot help playing them. All the lip-service paid by the (Big) bookies via their mates at the Gambling Commission has done nothing to alter the insidious nature of these evil pieces of junk. Many people have died because of them, they aren't necessary. They have been, in part, responsible for the demise of nearly every small bookmaker in the country, whilst pretending to be the only thing keeping them going. They should be banned altogether - the Big bookmaking firms would survive just fine. They don't want shops anyway, they spend most of their energy getting punters online, irrespective of the machines. If they can't be banned, then £2 should be an absolute maximum bet. |
|
By:
Spot on STUDYFORM. Couldn't agree more.
|
|
By:
Good post by STUDYFORM, it's very rare that I don't agree with you about the betting industry. I know you have been there and done it.
|
|
By:
Yes study bang on the money there
|
|
By:
How are people supposed to win their money back if stakes are cut from £100 to £2?
|
|
By:
Indeed he is anxious.
|
|
By:
study's post be removed soon
|
|
By:
They won't win it back whatever the stakes are, McCoy.
The fact that (about 15 years ago) the bookies managed to wangle a £500 maximum payout on any one spin or "event" (again with the assistance of the Gambling Commission), meant that it would for evermore be virtually impossible to recoup losses. I'll copy and keep it, Capt_F  |
|
By:
GC (barstoots) only about 10 years old time for lethal injection
|
|
By:
Posted by me on a similar thread over on the racing forum:
On page 17 of the RP today the ABB says, "Cutting stakes from £100 to £2 would be a disproportionate action and would mean people could bet more on a pub fruit machine, that has no responsible gambling measure in place, than a FOBT." Either they are talking b0ll0cks - like usual - or this needs updating: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/quick-guides/Gaming-machines-in-pubs-quick-guide.pdf The maximum stake on a pub fruit machine is £1. |
|
By:
There would be less need for the gravy train that is the GC if these machines went, Capt.
It is probably the least necessary quango that's ever been introduced. I cannot speak lowly enough of the GC. McCoy, The RP will ONLY ever say what their paymasters (the Big firms) want. The ABB IS the Big firms voice - not many small bookies left, and even fewer are connected to the ABB. Gaming machines in pubs are not the same as FOBTs. They work differently, they have a set percentage. The licences and tax set-ups are different. |
|
By:
GC pile of trash some nice well paid manufactured jobs give em a ring in Bham lot of clowns on the pay roll
|
|
By:
I've been to their offices. They didn't like it.
I've also had personal experience of the underhand practices they employ. |
|
By:
EXCELLENT POST STUDYFORM
|
|
By:
Stating the obvious, this is only an issue for me, and most people on here, because they won't take a bet and you get barred or restricted on sports betting. I would gladly let them keep FOBT's @ £100 a spin if my restrictions were taken away - within reason - say laying me to win between £500-£1000 on a horse for example. I'm not worried about ew betting, BOG and all the other stuff. Thta's what should of been made to happen.
|
|
By:
The 2 things are mutually exclusive.
FOBTs are not in any way related to betting as we know it. They are an automated form of Casino gaming, which has changed the way betting shops are run... which is by theorists and marketing/business studies graduates. The people running the companies have also changed the way horse racing works and have demanded SO much racing, nearly all of which is of no interest to most people, and which in turn (and largely thanks to Peter Savile) has more or less priced itself out of common view - Newspapers have hardly any, there are no results on the radio or TV and what TV coverage there is more about celebs and clothes than the sport. These changes have made the sport more open to fiddles and cheating than ever before, almost entirely because of the sheer volume of racing and the reduced need for horses to win. This in turn has made the Bookies for more risk-averse than bookies, by definition, should be. Any enforced rules about them taking bets would have to result in massively reduced odds and increased over-rounds. The money from FOBTs has had no impact on this. |
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0W9o1EFzfY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkSOQaRnSv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YGjnfxP4Os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_PpZO3X3Mw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaKUfUQiljg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2ndsvgYHs |
|
By:
I was thinking, £30 is the stake for the "hi roller" slot machine games.
So, it would still optimise addiction levels on the non-roulette games on the machines. That is REALLY out of order. |