General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.fairandopengambling.net/
Show More
http://www.fairandopengambling.net/
Do you know who is behind this petition?
Do you know who is behind this petition?
AMLD is £2285 per FOBT. Multiply that by four (per shop typically), and by however many thousands of shops there are, and it's more than a pretty penny before they've even taken a cut of the bookies' profits from them.
Will need to be one hell of a petition!
Will need to be one hell of a petition!
I guess posting an anti gambling post on a gambling forum is destined for failure.
Cant see it being Ralph Topping.
No. But it`s not much better.
They are an american company who produce online casino games. They started the petition because they see the FOBT`s as their main competitor.
They try campaigns and litigation in Europe and US with the aim of reducing their commercial competition.
No. But it`s not much better.
They are an american company who produce online casino games. They started the petition because they see the FOBT`s as their main competitor.
They try campaigns and litigation in Europe and US with the aim of reducing their commercial competition.
in all fairness these machines are disgusting.. i used to manage a bookies in the past..
you would get blokes who would NEVER bet more than a 5er per race or a 15 pound multi..
putting hundreds in these things.. abs mental.
you would get blokes who would NEVER bet more than a 5er per race or a 15 pound multi..
putting hundreds in these things.. abs mental.
A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference.
"A person that sqaunders his money" is an awful thing to say. It should be "a person who squanders his money"...
I don't like them, however without them our choice of horse and sports odds would no doubt be a lot less competitive than it is.
The Investor Joined: 05 Jun 06
Replies: 2721 07 Oct 10 22:46
A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference.
I made this point on an identical thread on horse racing forum, it was completely lost there.
Replies: 2721 07 Oct 10 22:46
A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference.
I made this point on an identical thread on horse racing forum, it was completely lost there.
The Investor 07 Oct 10 22:46
A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference
completely untrue.. like i said i am using one example as he was a friend of mine but its true.. would NEVER spend more than a few quid to a fiver a race and never stay in for more than an hour after work... yet he got addicted to these things- he occassionaly won big as they all do.. and ended up losign about 12k of his life savings i think.. maybe a touch less.. ended up havin to self exclude from every bookies in the locality.
A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference
completely untrue.. like i said i am using one example as he was a friend of mine but its true.. would NEVER spend more than a few quid to a fiver a race and never stay in for more than an hour after work... yet he got addicted to these things- he occassionaly won big as they all do.. and ended up losign about 12k of his life savings i think.. maybe a touch less.. ended up havin to self exclude from every bookies in the locality.
Well I'm no expert on the matter morrissey, and there are exceptions to most rules.
I've made the assumption that someone who has a gambling problem of any form, will practice poor money management across the rest of their finances. Would you say this is untrue, generally speaking?
I don't know how your friend got his £12k of life savings, but I would be extremely surprised if your average FOBT problem case was someone who carefully saved £100-200 a month with great care and discipline over a number of years on a modest salary, only to blow the lot in this way.
From what I've gathered the standard profile of a FOBT problem case is someone on benefits / low income with virtually no savings, so I'd say the fact that your friend even had £12k to blow to start with makes the whole case an unusual one. Perhaps this is just a stereo type though.
I've made the assumption that someone who has a gambling problem of any form, will practice poor money management across the rest of their finances. Would you say this is untrue, generally speaking?
I don't know how your friend got his £12k of life savings, but I would be extremely surprised if your average FOBT problem case was someone who carefully saved £100-200 a month with great care and discipline over a number of years on a modest salary, only to blow the lot in this way.
From what I've gathered the standard profile of a FOBT problem case is someone on benefits / low income with virtually no savings, so I'd say the fact that your friend even had £12k to blow to start with makes the whole case an unusual one. Perhaps this is just a stereo type though.
Agree with Morrissey,when i worked in the industry many 2 quid a race punters suddenly became frenzied lunatics when introduced to the fobts.One bloke who was left his mothers house when she passed away sold it and blew the lot in two years.As i stated in another thread,fobts allowed roulette to be available to the masses,most punters who now spunk their money away would never have set foot in a casino,the devils game is now available to all n sundry.
Many of the punters i dealt with would not have been able to switch a computer on,but were quite able to put twenties into a machine.I have never stated they should be banned,but being able to have spins every 30 or so seconds is a recipe fot disaster.
Do you think more damage is caused by internet gambling vs FOBT`s?
I would imagine internet gambling,many women have problems with internet gambling but you do not see them playing fobts.
I think you are probably right. The issue is that excessive internet gambling is done in private whereas excessive FOBT gambling is very much in public.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to impose different rules / limits for games of skill versus games of chance (where I define game of chance as a game where barring technical faults, any player automatically has a negative expectation, meaning they cannot apply skill to make a profit).
Perhaps it would be a good idea to impose different rules / limits for games of skill versus games of chance (where I define game of chance as a game where barring technical faults, any player automatically has a negative expectation, meaning they cannot apply skill to make a profit).
There already are different rules for skill machines vs games of chance machines.
There already are different rules for skill machines vs games of chance machines.
The Investor: A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference.
Disagree entirely. What you have to remember, Investor, is that not everyone is of average intelligence. Not everyone is as clever as you. These machines really are a scourge and should be banned.
Disagree entirely. What you have to remember, Investor, is that not everyone is of average intelligence. Not everyone is as clever as you. These machines really are a scourge and should be banned.
Prime Table Games ads
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad did not identify Prime Table as the advertiser and referred only to the campaign to 'Terminate the Terminals' and the website address, fairandopengambling.net. We nevertheless understood that domain name was registered by Prime Table.
We noted the ad stated "Will you put your name to our campaign to ban betting shop terminals?", "Our campaign to Terminate the Terminals is actively pursuing a change in policy ..." and "To support our campaign, please visit ...". We considered that readers were likely to infer that the ad was a call for support by a lobby group or non-governmental organisation, who were seeking to ban terminals from betting shops. We understood, however, that the ad was placed by a commercial company, Prime Table, who may or may not benefit from such a change in policy. We considered that it was important for readers, who may be deciding whether or not to lend their support to the campaign, to be aware of the organisation behind it. We noted readers could find out more information about the identity of the advertiser from the website. However, since it was not clear from the ad that Prime Table was the advertiser, we concluded that it could mislead.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).
2. & 4. Upheld
We considered that readers were likely to interpret the claims in the ad as factual statements that were capable of objective substantiation. We noted, however, we had not seen robust documentary evidence in support of the claims in the ad and noted they were supported primarily by anecdotal evidence.
We considered that the claims were presented as assertions of fact rather than opinion and were therefore capable of influencing readers to support the 'Terminate the Terminals' campaign. We concluded that the claims could mislead.
On points (2) and (4), the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
3. Upheld
We understood that the APBGC believed the claim was misleading because games on fixed odds betting terminals operated on a random basis through use of a Random Number Generator (RNG). The RNG would not know what the player had placed a bet on and it could not influence the outcome; the games could not therefore be described as unfair. APBGC pointed out that the RNG was independent of the game and was tested by Gambling Commission approved testing houses to ensure the integrity of the bet.
We noted the claim made a comparison between games on betting shop terminals and those played in casinos. We understood that Prime Table believed that, because games on fixed odds betting terminals offered poorer odds than their casino equivalents, they were wholly unfair by comparison. We considered, however, that poorer odds did not equate to unfair gambling and concluded that the description of fixed odds betting terminals as wholly unfair when compared to their casino equivalents was inaccurate and misleading.
On point (3), the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Prime Table to ensure that future ads clearly identified them as the advertiser. We also told them not to repeat the claims listed at points 2-4 and advised that they contact the CAP Copy Advice team for guidance with the wording of future ads.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad did not identify Prime Table as the advertiser and referred only to the campaign to 'Terminate the Terminals' and the website address, fairandopengambling.net. We nevertheless understood that domain name was registered by Prime Table.
We noted the ad stated "Will you put your name to our campaign to ban betting shop terminals?", "Our campaign to Terminate the Terminals is actively pursuing a change in policy ..." and "To support our campaign, please visit ...". We considered that readers were likely to infer that the ad was a call for support by a lobby group or non-governmental organisation, who were seeking to ban terminals from betting shops. We understood, however, that the ad was placed by a commercial company, Prime Table, who may or may not benefit from such a change in policy. We considered that it was important for readers, who may be deciding whether or not to lend their support to the campaign, to be aware of the organisation behind it. We noted readers could find out more information about the identity of the advertiser from the website. However, since it was not clear from the ad that Prime Table was the advertiser, we concluded that it could mislead.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).
2. & 4. Upheld
We considered that readers were likely to interpret the claims in the ad as factual statements that were capable of objective substantiation. We noted, however, we had not seen robust documentary evidence in support of the claims in the ad and noted they were supported primarily by anecdotal evidence.
We considered that the claims were presented as assertions of fact rather than opinion and were therefore capable of influencing readers to support the 'Terminate the Terminals' campaign. We concluded that the claims could mislead.
On points (2) and (4), the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
3. Upheld
We understood that the APBGC believed the claim was misleading because games on fixed odds betting terminals operated on a random basis through use of a Random Number Generator (RNG). The RNG would not know what the player had placed a bet on and it could not influence the outcome; the games could not therefore be described as unfair. APBGC pointed out that the RNG was independent of the game and was tested by Gambling Commission approved testing houses to ensure the integrity of the bet.
We noted the claim made a comparison between games on betting shop terminals and those played in casinos. We understood that Prime Table believed that, because games on fixed odds betting terminals offered poorer odds than their casino equivalents, they were wholly unfair by comparison. We considered, however, that poorer odds did not equate to unfair gambling and concluded that the description of fixed odds betting terminals as wholly unfair when compared to their casino equivalents was inaccurate and misleading.
On point (3), the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Prime Table to ensure that future ads clearly identified them as the advertiser. We also told them not to repeat the claims listed at points 2-4 and advised that they contact the CAP Copy Advice team for guidance with the wording of future ads.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
my old local co rals invariably had a woman sitting at one of them, including, bizarrely, the manageress of the local billy mountains.
would never have set foot in a casino
This is rather alien to me but my life has been ridiculously gambling orientated. What customers that go into bookies wouldn't go into a casino?
This is rather alien to me but my life has been ridiculously gambling orientated. What customers that go into bookies wouldn't go into a casino?
Years ago to become a casino member you needed introduction then i think had to wait 24 hours before you could punt.Rules have now changed but in my city we have several betting shops but the nearest casino is 20 miles away in Birmingham.Its somewhat easier walking in off the street and playing the fobts than driving for 30 mins and then have your photo taken then prove identity etc.
Yeah, was 48 hours before that. Still was full of people who had been in the bookies all afternoon though.
I forget they're so rare, you're right, far more more accessible in the bookies.
I forget they're so rare, you're right, far more more accessible in the bookies.
Muqbil Joined: 18 May 03
Replies: 2425 08 Oct 10 08:19
The Investor Joined: 05 Jun 06
Replies: 2721 07 Oct 10 22:46
A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference.
I made this point on an identical thread on horse racing forum, it was completely lost there.
Muqbil - You and a lot of others including politicians are making this assumption. Whilst it may be true for those such as myself who bet on the horses,dogs and football to a fair degree,for many FOBTs addicts that is their only gambling vice. I knew many addicts of these machines that bet just a tenner or a score on the footie coupons but would plough hundreds into the machines. These machines are ultra addictive and cause otherwise fairly sensible people to lose control of their finances. A lot of comments from people on here especially that probably have never played them or certainly no more than a few spins out of intrigue. They are a big problem but they are the lifeblood of the bookie industry and without them the industry would be on it's knees.
Replies: 2425 08 Oct 10 08:19
The Investor Joined: 05 Jun 06
Replies: 2721 07 Oct 10 22:46
A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference.
I made this point on an identical thread on horse racing forum, it was completely lost there.
Muqbil - You and a lot of others including politicians are making this assumption. Whilst it may be true for those such as myself who bet on the horses,dogs and football to a fair degree,for many FOBTs addicts that is their only gambling vice. I knew many addicts of these machines that bet just a tenner or a score on the footie coupons but would plough hundreds into the machines. These machines are ultra addictive and cause otherwise fairly sensible people to lose control of their finances. A lot of comments from people on here especially that probably have never played them or certainly no more than a few spins out of intrigue. They are a big problem but they are the lifeblood of the bookie industry and without them the industry would be on it's knees.
Lori Joined: 20 Apr 04
Replies: 23437 08 Oct 10 19:43
would never have set foot in a casino
This is rather alien to me but my life has been ridiculously gambling orientated. What customers that go into bookies wouldn't go into a casino?
Precisely the people the bookies target with "free goes" and competitions. My old fella is in the books every saturday putting on his one from each section and lucky 15 and is always being badgered.
Replies: 23437 08 Oct 10 19:43
would never have set foot in a casino
This is rather alien to me but my life has been ridiculously gambling orientated. What customers that go into bookies wouldn't go into a casino?
Precisely the people the bookies target with "free goes" and competitions. My old fella is in the books every saturday putting on his one from each section and lucky 15 and is always being badgered.
I knew many addicts of these machines that bet just a tenner or a score on the footie coupons but would plough hundreds into the machines. These machines are ultra addictive and cause otherwise fairly sensible people to lose control of their finances.
Do you think it is worse than internet gambling? At least you are limited by the amount of cash you can get your hands on. On the internet you can max out every card in a few minutes if you are minded to do so.
Do you think it is worse than internet gambling? At least you are limited by the amount of cash you can get your hands on. On the internet you can max out every card in a few minutes if you are minded to do so.
The Investor 07 Oct 10 22:46
A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference
Bit like saying the person that gets addicted to Crack is going to get addicted to something so why bother with regulations.
A person that sqaunders his money betting using betting terminals is just going to squander their money in another way if betting terminals are removed. I don't think it makes any difference
Bit like saying the person that gets addicted to Crack is going to get addicted to something so why bother with regulations.
Well, yes Ron, I think that's true. Personally I think drugs should be legalized. You hear stories in the paper about young people dying after taking XTC etc. The fact is that in a country like Holland, this is less likely to happen. Tackle club owners that charge a fiver for a bottle of water and make the taps in the bathroom boiling hot.
Look at America's 'war on drugs', the most collossal waste of money in the history of the world.
Look at America's 'war on drugs', the most collossal waste of money in the history of the world.
It's is partly due to this, that clubs / bars in many countries are now legally required to provide free water.
The Visionary Joined: 30 Jun 00
Replies: 4521 08 Oct 10 07:21
I don't like them, however without them our choice of horse and sports odds would no doubt be a lot less competitive than it is.
I'm sorry I dont see your logic
Do you think laddies think that cos they make a packet on their FBOTs that they can give a bit of value elsewhere ? If anything its the opposite
Before FBOTs bookies were betting to about 106% on the footy in the shops and rarely changed prices, now it is 112% and no chance of having anything on a match that is lower on here
Its more likely that the bookies think that they are making so much risk free money on the FBOTs that they dont want to risk profits on something that may give the punter more of a chance - without the FBOTs they may actually have to take a bet
Replies: 4521 08 Oct 10 07:21
I don't like them, however without them our choice of horse and sports odds would no doubt be a lot less competitive than it is.
I'm sorry I dont see your logic
Do you think laddies think that cos they make a packet on their FBOTs that they can give a bit of value elsewhere ? If anything its the opposite
Before FBOTs bookies were betting to about 106% on the footy in the shops and rarely changed prices, now it is 112% and no chance of having anything on a match that is lower on here
Its more likely that the bookies think that they are making so much risk free money on the FBOTs that they dont want to risk profits on something that may give the punter more of a chance - without the FBOTs they may actually have to take a bet
Banks Joined: 18 May 10
Replies: 873 09 Oct 10 17:32
I knew many addicts of these machines that bet just a tenner or a score on the footie coupons but would plough hundreds into the machines. These machines are ultra addictive and cause otherwise fairly sensible people to lose control of their finances.
Do you think it is worse than internet gambling? At least you are limited by the amount of cash you can get your hands on. On the internet you can max out every card in a few minutes if you are minded to do so.
No of course not because most of the games on the net are the same format as FOBTs. Whether they are regulated to the same degree is another matter. The point is making gambling on demand products so readily available is irresponsible imv. It's a real scummy way for companies to make money from the explotation of people's weak spots. How any goverment minister could stand up and say these machines are social responsible is beyond me.
Replies: 873 09 Oct 10 17:32
I knew many addicts of these machines that bet just a tenner or a score on the footie coupons but would plough hundreds into the machines. These machines are ultra addictive and cause otherwise fairly sensible people to lose control of their finances.
Do you think it is worse than internet gambling? At least you are limited by the amount of cash you can get your hands on. On the internet you can max out every card in a few minutes if you are minded to do so.
No of course not because most of the games on the net are the same format as FOBTs. Whether they are regulated to the same degree is another matter. The point is making gambling on demand products so readily available is irresponsible imv. It's a real scummy way for companies to make money from the explotation of people's weak spots. How any goverment minister could stand up and say these machines are social responsible is beyond me.
Where do you draw the line though?
Do you ban all internet gambling too? What about casinos? Bingo? You could make a case for banning everything. If you are going to be selective then you need some very good evidence to back up your decisions and I would hazard a guess that there is more evidence against internet gambling than there is against FOBTs.
Do you ban all internet gambling too? What about casinos? Bingo? You could make a case for banning everything. If you are going to be selective then you need some very good evidence to back up your decisions and I would hazard a guess that there is more evidence against internet gambling than there is against FOBTs.
I think there is a clear line. Gambling on demand type games (which FOBTs basically are) should only be in casino environments where you need to be a member,etc It's the ease of availability that makes the FOBTs so dangerous. Any type of gambling whereby the user/punter can generate the event/game/spin at will is too far im my view. It's preying on the vunerable.
This idea that any interference from the government makes it a nanny state is plain daft to me. Governments have a responsibilty to the public. If making ultra addictive forms of gambling available on the high street is being responsible then why not make class A drugs available on the high st also?
This idea that any interference from the government makes it a nanny state is plain daft to me. Governments have a responsibilty to the public. If making ultra addictive forms of gambling available on the high street is being responsible then why not make class A drugs available on the high st also?
So should all gambling internet sites be closed down too?
Also worth noting that you don`t need to be a member to get in casinos now. The old 24 hour rule has gone.
Also worth noting that you don`t need to be a member to get in casinos now. The old 24 hour rule has gone.
How would you address the problem of internet bingo addiction?.
http://www.gamblingtherapy.org/en-gb/ShowThread.aspx?ID=549716&Page=1
I'm sure there are a few people out there addicted to 'exchange betting' too. How would you propose to tackle that one?
http://www.gamblingtherapy.org/en-gb/ShowThread.aspx?ID=549716&Page=1
I'm sure there are a few people out there addicted to 'exchange betting' too. How would you propose to tackle that one?
I don't play either FOBTs or on Betfair's virtual casino, but I do know the following.
The FOBTs in the high street are restricted to a £100 maximum stake per bet, and the various animations of games leave between 20-25 seconds per betting opportunity. Therefore, the maximum which can be gambled per minute is £300.
By means of comparison, I just went onto a Betfair casino "play for fun" game (3D Roulette). Like I said, I do not know if these limits apply to real cash roulette, but I was able to stake £2,000 on one spin (and that was only because you start off with £2,000 worth of chips, not through any table limits), and pressed the "repeat bet button" just under 15 seconds after my first spin. So if this is accurate, you can stake roughly 26x the amount of money per minute here on Betfair than on any high-street FOBT.
And to be honest, I think that the way you can make a deposit to Betfair within a few clicks and resume gambling is also more appealing and therefore dangerous to an addictive personality, rather than going to their bank to withdraw hard cash before waiting for the high street bookies to open.
I'm not absolving high-street FOBTs of blame in creating gambling additions - the overwhelming majority of self-exclusions from betting premises (And Betfair too, I would imagine) are from those who play fixed-odds games, rather than those who gamble on horses or sports. However, I think too often on this site the arguments against FOBTs descend into banal tirades against the 'auld enemy' of the high-street bookies, when they are perhaps offering (terrifyingly) one of the more watered-down versions of fixed-odds gambling.
The FOBTs in the high street are restricted to a £100 maximum stake per bet, and the various animations of games leave between 20-25 seconds per betting opportunity. Therefore, the maximum which can be gambled per minute is £300.
By means of comparison, I just went onto a Betfair casino "play for fun" game (3D Roulette). Like I said, I do not know if these limits apply to real cash roulette, but I was able to stake £2,000 on one spin (and that was only because you start off with £2,000 worth of chips, not through any table limits), and pressed the "repeat bet button" just under 15 seconds after my first spin. So if this is accurate, you can stake roughly 26x the amount of money per minute here on Betfair than on any high-street FOBT.
And to be honest, I think that the way you can make a deposit to Betfair within a few clicks and resume gambling is also more appealing and therefore dangerous to an addictive personality, rather than going to their bank to withdraw hard cash before waiting for the high street bookies to open.
I'm not absolving high-street FOBTs of blame in creating gambling additions - the overwhelming majority of self-exclusions from betting premises (And Betfair too, I would imagine) are from those who play fixed-odds games, rather than those who gamble on horses or sports. However, I think too often on this site the arguments against FOBTs descend into banal tirades against the 'auld enemy' of the high-street bookies, when they are perhaps offering (terrifyingly) one of the more watered-down versions of fixed-odds gambling.
Also, how can you possibly restrict betting on online casinos, other than if the government introduced legislation to block them, which in the real world is simply not going to happen. I'd wager FOBTs in bookmakers account for far more problem gamblers then their online equivalent, where you at least have to know a bit about computers and how to find the sites / download the software and have internet access (I know it's not a huge deal but even so the effort involved would stop many), whereas literally anyone can just walk in off the street, chuck thousands in a machine, and no-one will be any the wiser...
I would certainly ban FOBTs, or at the very least make them subject to much tougher regulations and tax them much more heavily than they are at present, using some of the proceeds to fund addiction charities etc.
I would certainly ban FOBTs, or at the very least make them subject to much tougher regulations and tax them much more heavily than they are at present, using some of the proceeds to fund addiction charities etc.
The people you see in shops brandishing wads of cash usually possess that money solely to play on FOBT machines, as they accept the risks involved, just as more "intelligent" people who can use a computer leave thousands in their online accounts so that they can play fixed-odds casino games.
I'd wager FOBTs in bookmakers account for far more problem gamblers then their online equivalent
I`d very much doubt that is true unless you are looking purely at online roulette vs FOBT`s rather than all online games vs FOBT`s.
I`d very much doubt that is true unless you are looking purely at online roulette vs FOBT`s rather than all online games vs FOBT`s.
Tilt & Banks - The internet is harder to police,but yes i agree the casinos on the net including BFs are worse in that there appears to be much higher limits on staking and less time between spins on demand. That is why i had to personally bar myself from the online casino after stupidly dipping my toe into it for a late night chase which is probably what many compulsives use it for. But the high street machies are a different matter. They are governed and monitored "properly" but they should never have been allowed in the first place. I want to know the series of events that led to goverment allowing them and who the other lobbyists were (i know one of them). What means were used to twist the goverments arm?
Banks - Can't believe you don't see a difference between someone betting on the days horse racing and someone spinning the wheel every 20 seconds. The latter could turn over thousands over hundreds of bets in an afternoon where as the former can only bet on the races available usually around 30 odd races.
Banks - Can't believe you don't see a difference between someone betting on the days horse racing and someone spinning the wheel every 20 seconds. The latter could turn over thousands over hundreds of bets in an afternoon where as the former can only bet on the races available usually around 30 odd races.
At least someone using FOBT's will discover very rapidly if they have a gambling problem.
Someone betting on sports could spend a lifetime in denial.
Someone betting on sports could spend a lifetime in denial.
Not that I'd advise trying it if you do think you have a gambling problem of course.
Banks - Can't believe you don't see a difference between someone betting on the days horse racing and someone spinning the wheel every 20 seconds.
Where on earth did I say that?
Where on earth did I say that?
Banks you made several comments concerning where we draw the line with banning some forms of gambling. I was just drawing the conclusion that you think all gambling should be treated the same. If i'm wrong please elaborate.
I wd love to see them banned.
First this wd protect vulnerable people.
Second, more selfishly they wd likely lose on horse racing, propping up the levy, poss. underwriting me and making it easier for me to get on.
Against this is the possibility that the presence of FOBTs allows the bm s to accept tighter horse prices. Since I'm only ever taking advertised prices in the morning, I'm not sure that this wd matter to me.
First this wd protect vulnerable people.
Second, more selfishly they wd likely lose on horse racing, propping up the levy, poss. underwriting me and making it easier for me to get on.
Against this is the possibility that the presence of FOBTs allows the bm s to accept tighter horse prices. Since I'm only ever taking advertised prices in the morning, I'm not sure that this wd matter to me.
Banks you made several comments concerning where we draw the line with banning some forms of gambling. I was just drawing the conclusion that you think all gambling should be treated the same. If i'm wrong please elaborate.
I was making the point that if we are to distinguish between different forms of gambling (and I think we should) then we need to be clear on the criteria used.
Everyone seems to think that small amounts of anecdotal evidence is sufficient. The reality is that there would need to be large amounts of robust data to evidence a problem before anything is done.
I would be pretty confident that if all gambling were looked at using this criteria that, as things stand, more action could be justified against internet gambling than there could be against the FOBT`s.
Of course this may and most probably will change over time however people need to be realistic.
I was making the point that if we are to distinguish between different forms of gambling (and I think we should) then we need to be clear on the criteria used.
Everyone seems to think that small amounts of anecdotal evidence is sufficient. The reality is that there would need to be large amounts of robust data to evidence a problem before anything is done.
I would be pretty confident that if all gambling were looked at using this criteria that, as things stand, more action could be justified against internet gambling than there could be against the FOBT`s.
Of course this may and most probably will change over time however people need to be realistic.
Second, more selfishly they wd likely lose on horse racing, propping up the levy, poss. underwriting me and making it easier for me to get on.
I would argue that the opposite is true. As it stands the machine losers keep the shops open for racing punters. Without them the choices and prices would be far less than they are now.
I think it would be harder for you to get on without the machines not easier.
I would argue that the opposite is true. As it stands the machine losers keep the shops open for racing punters. Without them the choices and prices would be far less than they are now.
I think it would be harder for you to get on without the machines not easier.
Just think: if FOBTs were removed from the shops - no more scrotes. Likely return to sensible opening times too, which is good for staff morale. All in all, a good atmosphere boost all round.
Just think: if FOBTs were removed from the shops - no more scrotes. Likely return to sensible opening times too, which is good for staff morale. All in all, a good atmosphere boost all round.
Most would close.
Most would close.
Done 114 bets so far today, of those only 43 are for this afternoons racing. The rest are made up of virtual (loads of em) football, irish lottery a few dogs and some south african racing. No one gives a shi t about racing nowadays.
The stake money on the FOBS is 4 times higher than over the counter so far today.
People will always do there conkers on the fobs in the long run, but if someone had turn £20 into £100 it would be easier to do it on the fobs than any other way in a betting shop.
The stake money on the FOBS is 4 times higher than over the counter so far today.
People will always do there conkers on the fobs in the long run, but if someone had turn £20 into £100 it would be easier to do it on the fobs than any other way in a betting shop.
Maine Road, easier or more likely?
If I split the £20 into four banks and wagered fractions of each (one at a time) on Pricewise, Hugh Taylor and my own selections when your shop was a standout price above the exchange price, wd I be less or more likely eventually to get to £100 than the arcade player?
Banks, maybe, but usually I am getting on b/c the firm has advertised the price. If you stop giving advertised prices, then you risk kicking up a stink in places like Hackney and elsewhere in London where bookies shops are seen as undesirable.
A winning price-taker is further often accommodated to small sums b/c the shop staff are disenchanted with the bm and are happy to see someone win. You need to have a few placers and know the limits.
If I split the £20 into four banks and wagered fractions of each (one at a time) on Pricewise, Hugh Taylor and my own selections when your shop was a standout price above the exchange price, wd I be less or more likely eventually to get to £100 than the arcade player?
Banks, maybe, but usually I am getting on b/c the firm has advertised the price. If you stop giving advertised prices, then you risk kicking up a stink in places like Hackney and elsewhere in London where bookies shops are seen as undesirable.
A winning price-taker is further often accommodated to small sums b/c the shop staff are disenchanted with the bm and are happy to see someone win. You need to have a few placers and know the limits.
Askari; I'm talking about your average Joe. Doing it your way you would probably be the more likely. The thing with the FOBS is that the punter can stick a nicker in and get 35/1 about a 36/1 chance. If he say put a nicker on number 1 and a nicker on a 33/1 horse his money would be gone quicker on the horses.
What makes these games so much more addictive than regular betting?
Is it the speed of the games? I wonder how many people would play if you had to wait 15 minutes between spins?
Is it the speed of the games? I wonder how many people would play if you had to wait 15 minutes between spins?
The Betfairy Joined: 29 Apr 06
Replies: 7514 11 Oct 10 18:17
What makes these games so much more addictive than regular betting?
Dopamine rush. It's the neurotransmitter chemical that is associated with anticipation of reward. The brain produces lots of it during sexual arousal, too. Amphetamine, cocaine, PCP and ketamine all cause massive amounts of dopamine to be relesed.
Presumably, the speed of the action on FOBTs causes more dopamine to be released than betting on horses every 15 minutes. Your body's own chemicals can be addictive drugs.
Replies: 7514 11 Oct 10 18:17
What makes these games so much more addictive than regular betting?
Dopamine rush. It's the neurotransmitter chemical that is associated with anticipation of reward. The brain produces lots of it during sexual arousal, too. Amphetamine, cocaine, PCP and ketamine all cause massive amounts of dopamine to be relesed.
Presumably, the speed of the action on FOBTs causes more dopamine to be released than betting on horses every 15 minutes. Your body's own chemicals can be addictive drugs.
Spot on wur, it's also a psychological rush as well as a physiological on. If you sit on here and trade a race for a fiver, that's just money on a race.
Sit on a FOBT and have lots of nice colours in front of you, that's brilliant, especially if you are with friends.
It's a joke that these things are allowed, there is no way that they would all be sat at home internet gambling on FOBT-type games. Who knows maybe they would be punting on horses....... Levy problem, what levy problem........
Sit on a FOBT and have lots of nice colours in front of you, that's brilliant, especially if you are with friends.
It's a joke that these things are allowed, there is no way that they would all be sat at home internet gambling on FOBT-type games. Who knows maybe they would be punting on horses....... Levy problem, what levy problem........
It's a joke that these things are allowed, there is no way that they would all be sat at home internet gambling on FOBT-type games. Who knows maybe they would be punting on horses....... Levy problem, what levy problem........
Are you sure?
Problem gambling via the internet is far higher than shop based problem gambling.
To think that any significant amount of the FOBT money if they were banned would find its way to racing is fanciful. The money would disappear from shops and many would close.
Out of interest of the current approx 8,800 betting shops how many do you think would be open 12 months later if the FOBTs were removed?
Are you sure?
Problem gambling via the internet is far higher than shop based problem gambling.
To think that any significant amount of the FOBT money if they were banned would find its way to racing is fanciful. The money would disappear from shops and many would close.
Out of interest of the current approx 8,800 betting shops how many do you think would be open 12 months later if the FOBTs were removed?
Banks over half the shops would close. The fobs amount to 30% of the profit yet only 5% of the overheads.
You are spot on about the money not finding its way to racing if the fobs were banned. I would say about 70% of the fob players dont bother with the horses, and the ones that do generally just go on em for a few spins.
You are spot on about the money not finding its way to racing if the fobs were banned. I would say about 70% of the fob players dont bother with the horses, and the ones that do generally just go on em for a few spins.
It is far too simplistic to suggest an otherwise totally normal person with no mental kinks can suddenly be turned into a gambling crazed addict by an electronic gaming machine. The first time that person stumbled onto an internet site with the same amount of flashing lights, they are just as likely (quite possibly more so with credit cards) to secumb to the flashing lights.
Muqbil - Probably true but the net is an out of control beast whereas high street shops are well under the goverments control. They are being irresponsible by allowing the machines in these shops.
Banks - Who cares if the shops go under? It just backs up my point that these machines are fleecing punters to support greedy shareholders at the big 4 bookies. They are exploiting the weak willed with their crack cocaine of gambling. Let them rot for all i care just stop them robbing the public.
Banks - Who cares if the shops go under? It just backs up my point that these machines are fleecing punters to support greedy shareholders at the big 4 bookies. They are exploiting the weak willed with their crack cocaine of gambling. Let them rot for all i care just stop them robbing the public.
Banks - Who cares if the shops go under? It just backs up my point that these machines are fleecing punters to support greedy shareholders at the big 4 bookies. They are exploiting the weak willed with their crack cocaine of gambling. Let them rot for all i care just stop them robbing the public.
The removal of any form of competition is bad news for teh customer. If all shops closed and you had an exchange monopoly you would find charges would go into the stratosphere.
Aside from that I would again ask where your evidence is that the machines are more of an issue than internet gambling for example?
Would you support that being abolished too or are internet firms allowed to "rob the public"?
Your arguement is somewhat poorly thought out I`m afraid.
The removal of any form of competition is bad news for teh customer. If all shops closed and you had an exchange monopoly you would find charges would go into the stratosphere.
Aside from that I would again ask where your evidence is that the machines are more of an issue than internet gambling for example?
Would you support that being abolished too or are internet firms allowed to "rob the public"?
Your arguement is somewhat poorly thought out I`m afraid.
Surely people can see it is a problem with society, not the machines?
If, as people like to describe the machines, they are the crack cocaine of gambling, their use will not go away. As people are suggesting one click and they are hooked, the machines would be a gift from heaven for illegal operators should their use on the high street become illegal.
If, as people like to describe the machines, they are the crack cocaine of gambling, their use will not go away. As people are suggesting one click and they are hooked, the machines would be a gift from heaven for illegal operators should their use on the high street become illegal.
Banks - Why is important that internet gambling is more of a problem than shop FOBTs? Everyone knows that the internet is virtually unregulated and there are a million and one sh1sters out there trying to extract money from you one way or another.
My point has always been,how on earth did the powers at be get conned into allowing the bookies to sneak these machines under the radar? Either the relevant powers in the government at the time were stupid or there was some serious palm greasing going on.
You are often criticised on here for siding with the bookie boys in such issues. What is your view on how they came to be in the shops in the first place?
My point has always been,how on earth did the powers at be get conned into allowing the bookies to sneak these machines under the radar? Either the relevant powers in the government at the time were stupid or there was some serious palm greasing going on.
You are often criticised on here for siding with the bookie boys in such issues. What is your view on how they came to be in the shops in the first place?
mginvest, my personal take on the machines being allowed into shops initially was as a sweetner for the firms to; a) Stick with the levy scheme b) Not go offshore, c) Prob a multitude of other secret handshake reasons too.
They are here now, and I am yet to hear ONE single coherent argument why they should now be made illegal.
How much protection do vulnerable people actually need to protect themselves from themselves? There is a trillion ways in which they can harm themselves on the way to put money into the machines.
I believe people jump on the 'Ban the machines' bandwagon because the high street shops are a) Perceived as the enemy and b) Appear an easy nicely packaged target.
They are here now, and I am yet to hear ONE single coherent argument why they should now be made illegal.
How much protection do vulnerable people actually need to protect themselves from themselves? There is a trillion ways in which they can harm themselves on the way to put money into the machines.
I believe people jump on the 'Ban the machines' bandwagon because the high street shops are a) Perceived as the enemy and b) Appear an easy nicely packaged target.
If, as people like to describe the machines, they are the crack cocaine of gambling, their use will not go away
Their use WILL go away if they are banned!
Their use WILL go away if they are banned!
crack cocaine is banned but it's use flourishes amongst a certain part of society.
Yeah but its pretty easy to stroll into a shop and see if they have FOBT machines. It's a bit trickier to tell if some is on/has some crack. Enforcement becomes trivial and forces the machines down into nasty udnerground basements. Usage will drop.
Chilly the Dog Joined: 25 Feb 06
Replies: 84 13 Oct 10 14:03
Yeah but its pretty easy to stroll into a shop and see if they have FOBT machines. It's a bit trickier to tell if some is on/has some crack. Enforcement becomes trivial and forces the machines down into nasty udnerground basements.
And that's good????????????
Replies: 84 13 Oct 10 14:03
Yeah but its pretty easy to stroll into a shop and see if they have FOBT machines. It's a bit trickier to tell if some is on/has some crack. Enforcement becomes trivial and forces the machines down into nasty udnerground basements.
And that's good????????????
Muqbil Joined: 18 May 03
Replies: 2437 13 Oct 10 11:59
crack cocaine is banned but it's use flourishes amongst a certain part of society.
Hmm. That sounds like a Monty Python sketch to me. You're implying some sort of underground speakeasy clubs where addicts can go and play illegal FOBTs?
Who's gonna supply the data feeds for these? Can't imagine Global Draw breaking the law.
Replies: 2437 13 Oct 10 11:59
crack cocaine is banned but it's use flourishes amongst a certain part of society.
Hmm. That sounds like a Monty Python sketch to me. You're implying some sort of underground speakeasy clubs where addicts can go and play illegal FOBTs?
Who's gonna supply the data feeds for these? Can't imagine Global Draw breaking the law.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539