General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.fairandopengambling.net/
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 71
|
By:
http://www.fairandopengambling.net/
Do you know who is behind this petition? |
|
By:
Cant see it being Ralph Topping.
|
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
I guess posting an anti gambling post on a gambling forum is destined for failure.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
"A person that sqaunders his money" is an awful thing to say. It should be "a person who squanders his money"...
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Should internet gambling be banned too?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Do you think more damage is caused by internet gambling vs FOBT`s?
|
|
By:
I would imagine internet gambling,many women have problems with internet gambling but you do not see them playing fobts.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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).
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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) |
|
By:
my old local co rals invariably had a woman sitting at one of them, including, bizarrely, the manageress of the local billy mountains.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
It's is partly due to this, that clubs / bars in many countries are now legally required to provide free water.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |