i thought the banks were clamping down on easy credit, and rightly so


these fobts seem to allow people to do things they wouldnt normally do,
i know its their own doing, but some are easily led.

they are destroying peoples lives, if that is the society you want then fair enough

i dont see much of what happens in a casino, but i doubt the turnover
of games is so rapid

why the concern.... why not show concern

what proof can i give you on an open forum .. probably none that
will convince you, if you have no concern

One proper reason for banning them would be to increase betting turnover on horse racing which in turn would increase the levy.

It would have little to no impact unless exchanges were banned too. They are a far,far bigger negative effect on the levy than machines.

You will not find a debate on FOBTs where Banks doesn't post.He denies it but he obviously has a vested interest.The cold facts are quite simple.If betting shops did not have machines, then they would have to up their game on proper betting to attract custom.If half of Ladbrokes profits are made from FOBTs then if they no longer had them they would have to increase turnover elsewhere.Then of course some of that would be on horse-racing with a significant increase in levy.If bookmakers could not increase sports turnover then their share price would fall and heads would roll.
  However, unfortunately the machines are here to stay so the arguement is all rather academic.Bookmakers will take the easy profits and horse racing will go the way of Greyhound racing.

homefortea I post because most of what is written is complete crap. It is almost universally accepted on here that the removal of machines would return horse racing to its former glories. I really don't think that is true. Machines and exchanges arrived at pretty much the same time and I'm adamant that the latter caused way more damage to racing than the former.

It is nigh on impossible to significantly increase shop based horse turnover. Online maybe but not shops. If exchanges were to go then there could be a return to "proper" off course horse betting.

As you say machines and exchanges are here to stay so the argument is somewhat hypothetical.

And finally for the umpteenth time I don't work for a bookmaker, machine supplier or anyone else who has a vested interest in profitability of machines or bookmakers as a whole for that matter.

Why would you want to promote these machines unbiased?

Er, no actually it is very easy, you simply have shops accepting proper bets, and not kacking themselves because someone asks for 100 quid on a 5/1 shot, and not getting treated as if they trod in something because it is trading at 5.9 on here. HTH.


Not true. If it were that simple why don't the big firms do it then? 

Are you seriously suggesting that they are wilfully turning down profit just to be a bit awkward?

But surely if the risk ultimately resulted in profit they would just as likely do it now as they would if there were no machines.

If a plc was seen to be refusing income streams the board would be kicked into touch immediately.

If you are suggesting that the mugs would bet on horses if machines didn't exist I really don't think that is the case. It is too slow, too involved for them. You only have to look at how much is bet on things like virual racing to see that the addicts want instant kicks.

Surely the majority of these addicts are addicted to the money they MIGHT win as against the so called thrill of pushing a button or betting on a glorified video game. If so then they would look for alternatives if these FOTB's were banned.

Is it true that the Irish government wont allow them in the Republic? I read it when i googled the subject....dont know if its old info or not

Betfair is part of the reason, but the fact that they simple refuse to take decent size bets in favour of risk free, no levy paid cartoon racing, FOBTs etc is a much, much bigger one.

Betfair is part of the reason, but the fact that they simple refuse to take decent size bets in favour of risk free, no levy paid cartoon racing, FOBTs etc is a much, much bigger one.

That doesn't make sense unless you are suggesting that potential large staking horse punters who are refused bets are spending the same money on FOBTs instead which is of course not the case.

They are 2 completely separate pools of money. Why would they refuse some of it (eg large staking horse bets)now if it is profitable? And on the flip side if it is unprofitable why would they accept it if machines went?

It is completely illogical and confused thinking.

The reason that horse racing turnover is down , is due entirely to greed . Shops made good money when I started working in the 1970's . It was easy , fill up the hod and grab your percentage . So easy infact , that you had to open another and another until areas were saturated . Next they began to increase the number of meetings , then the number of races at meetings , then the hours the shops opened (which destroyed evening greyhounds), then numbers games , then cartoon racing and then fobts . It doesn't matter what there is to bet on , people only have so much money to play with . There are of course the addicted  , but these people would do their money when and wherever they could . Bookmakers have become seedy , hideous places to visit......four people playing fobts with a dozen hangers on surrounding them......what's next ?

Banks, give it a rest.You come out with the same old rubbish time after time.Of course many of the mugs on the FOBTs would not bet on sports but many would.If you have £100 to spend and lose it on a machine then you are skint.The one fact that you cannot comprehend is that if there were no machines (unlikely) then of course Betting Shop Owners (I would not use the term "Bookmakers") would have to up their game on sports betting.
  By the way you really are the "educated" freaky fraudy (lazarus2) of the forum.....Sometimes I wonder if he doesn't have a split personality....

Crikey eyeball..I couldn't have put it better myself !!

Yes well said eyeball, of course the fact that these alternative incomes have no levy to pay and no risk is according to Banks irrelevant.

Yes, I can see why Banks is accused of being a bookie stooge or apologist, he obviously has some connection to them.

Yet another deluded fool who is too ill educated to be able to understand and digest a reasoned argument. Much easier to claim I have an agenda (I don't) rather than give a reasoned response.

It is much like arguing with a child.

How on earth is that relevant? 

Read my post of 19.31 and you will see that your comment is ridiculous.

i dont see why anyone would defend them if they were not making money from them

fair enough people may do their cash elsewhere, but they may equally go and spend it in the local butchers or take the wife for a meal like they did when the yankee copped.

still, its a free country

I'll just have to accept you are too stupid to understand a single thing I say and leave it at that, can't say I didn't try.

Another one who simply doesn't have the mental capacity to construct a lucid argument. No wonder the country is going to the dogs if this is the level of ability we are dealing with.

I have constucted various sensible, well reasoned arguments on this thread, you don't have any answers to them hence you predictably ignored them, as others will note.