now i know why shops open til ten at night and even christmas eve

Out of interest million1 - is the 43k you lost money you'd won from gambling in the first place or have you got loans out and taken money off credit cards to feed your habit?

million1 - well done for realising the mistake you made.

It takes a man to confront this....

what were you trying to win million1, when you had 43k in the bank ??

i dont know i yhink it was boredom always had to hav a buzz i suppose tried to nick 500 a week  wich i did quite often on football etc--- but this was just hell no sense--i honestly couldnt stop even though i knew it was mental

I doubt it, i know plenty of people who have lost thousands on these machines.

i work for a bookies and we are being forced into pushing the roulette macs at people pushing people into playing demo's also the reason they give free hot drinks and not cans is that you are less likely to walk out of the shop with a hot drink so hoping u spend more while it is cooling down wish people would realise how bad these things are % against you no form to go on and it is amazing how they seem to pay out on big meetings and festivals when more people are coming through the doors then take it back plus more in the following weeks.

Certainly with with awp machines they pay out the % over a certain amount of money so like 73% over £2000. Which means they can go on the take for £100's and give 1 big payout to bring the %up.

cheers mate---i have calmed down now ---starting from scratch again now------this time next year rodney

what annoys me is how in your face it is becoming on this site and most betting sites.. william hill bought a load of bookies in Ireland on the basis that the law was being changed to allow roulette machines into bookies . However it has never been introduced and now Hills have gone from Ireland because of it. THEY SHOULD BE BANNED FULLSTOP, they are a scandalous waste of time and money. Please dont bet on Roulette or any casino game in fact as it will end in tears. It gets people who once have thought they wouldent get caught.

i suppose the programming behind these machines is up for independant review then?

Agreed should be banned, to easy to play and designed to be addictive. I know of someone who had never gambled  was introduced to these FOBT roulette, within 6 months was totally addicted had lost everything, maxed out all their credit cards and turned to theft and fraud in desperation. Went from a normal happy life to a wreck, warrant out for arrest and facing a spell in jail. Think these things must have ruined thousands of peoples lives in the last few years. Best off luck for the future Million1, just write it off and start fresh no roulette and no chasing.

Betfair Arcade far quicker way to lose your money, imo. Saves on travel costs, too.

The games are completely random and pay out to 97% average (ie the average pay out per spin).

The people who think its fixed or who think the payout is lower are missing the point.

1. They dont need to be fixed or payout lower than 97% to make money.
2. Even if they paid out at 101% the bookies would still coin it in.

People dont believe this seccond point but it has been proven to be true. To understand why, you have to understand the mentality of a  typical gambler (not everyone falls into this typical category, but most do, even most who would swear they dont). The original poster is a case in point, as I was at Cheltenham. Most gamblers do not have stop levels, either for profit or for losses. So, they are willing to carry on going until they are bust or until they have won an amount they consider to be "enough". However, unless this "enough value" is preset, it will not ever be reached. If gamblers get "up" they tend to up their stakes, and keep going. Now we know that things happen in streaks and it is mathematical fact that if you keep playing long enough you will eventually hit a bad streak. Even if you start well, eventually you will hit a streak that will take you down to zero if your stakes are too big as a proportion of your bank.

If you imagine a profit and loss graph with time on the y axis (horizontal) and profit/loss on the x axis (vertical) and plot your gain/losses over time you will expect to see something that looks like a mountain range. However, the built-in "stop points", if the gambler doesnt have their own, are ultimate zero, ie bankrupt and millionaire, casino bankrupt or machine's payout limits reached. If you put a line on the graph for bankrupt (another horizontal line at some point under zero (£43,000 under £0 in the OP's case), and another line on the graph for millionaire, casino bankrupt or machine limit reached, you will see that they are all much further away from £0 than your own bankrupt point.

It is then statistically and mathematically much more likely that you will reach the bottom line before you reach the lines above you. ie you will go bust first.

are corals and lads still trying to get 6 machines in shops?

the afficted should use super glue currency for a quick cure, hope this helps

cant be banned, people have a choice, if they wish to play these machines so be it.

I'm ahead on them.  I've put in zero & taken out £26.

Keep writing to your MP and to Jeremy Hunt (culture secretary) about this issue.

There are MPs such as David Lammy in Haringey who are strongly opposed to these machines, and by writing you will keep up pressure and convince the government to take action.

Here is a link to an adjournment debate (means there 2 men and his dog in the chamber listening, but ah well) in which Lammy set out his views.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-11-24a.403.0

Some choice quotes.


The latest application for a betting shop on Tottenham High road-the 10th along that stretch that stretch of road-would mean a betting shop replacing one of the most famous independent music shops in the north London area. This debate is about Haringey, but it is worth mentioning that the old Hackney town hall, which was built in 1802, is now a bookmaker's, as is the iconic Railway Tavern opposite. That is not to say that I am against gambling-far from it. Bookmakers certainly have a place on our high street, but there is such a thing as having too many.


there were mistakes in the 2005 Act. When the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard reports of debates on that measure, he will find virtually no discussion of bookmakers. As he might remember, although he was not a Member of the House at the time, the debate was predominantly about super-casinos. That is precisely why the problems I am talking about came in through the back door. That situation undermines the sustainability of high streets, limits the diversity of footfall and acts as a deterrent to any prospective business that is looking to invest in our area. We sacrifice the diversity and vibrancy of a high street by allowing an increasing number of shop fronts to be occupied by the same, narrow-appealing trade.

The main trade for bookmakers is through fixed-odds betting terminals, which are gaming machines that allow people to play casino games with casino stakes, but at three times the speed. They are highly addictive, allowing users to place stakes of £100 a time, and are known as the crack cocaine of betting for that reason. Such machines are what make betting shops profitable, and the limit of four per shop is what makes further betting premises viable. Betting shops increasingly resemble casinos, except that they do not require the same levels of regulation.

The debate on the Gambling Act 2005 ... neglected to consider the wider impact of removing demand tests for new betting shops. We are left with a licensing framework that requires licensing authorities to "aim to permit", yet prevents residents, councillors or interested parties from opposing a premise licence on the basis of how many exist already and gives no scope for considering the cumulative impact of additional premises. It is a licensing framework that burdens councils with legal costs of up to £10,000 if their rejection of a licence is overturned on appeal to a magistrates court, and creates an active disincentive for councils to oppose licences.