General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
22 Mar 12
17:36
Joined:
Date Joined:
28 May 11
Do you think the limit of 4 fixed odds betting terminals (FOBT) allowed per betting shop serves any purpose?
Personally I think it makes sense to either ban them completely, or let the shops have as many as they like.
These machines are so lucrative that the big bookies can fill a street with about ten bookies that cover running costs just from these machines. They make money and take up space that would otherwise be available to other retailers if the bookie could have more units in one outlet? I believe that the main purpose of having shops of the same chain within about 100 metres of each other is to pack in more FOBT's.
So how would you order the following three options by what you prefer:
1) Make FOBT's illegal
2) Keep the limit of 4 per shop
3) Allow bookies to put as many as they like in their shop
Personally I think it makes sense to either ban them completely, or let the shops have as many as they like.
These machines are so lucrative that the big bookies can fill a street with about ten bookies that cover running costs just from these machines. They make money and take up space that would otherwise be available to other retailers if the bookie could have more units in one outlet? I believe that the main purpose of having shops of the same chain within about 100 metres of each other is to pack in more FOBT's.
So how would you order the following three options by what you prefer:
1) Make FOBT's illegal
2) Keep the limit of 4 per shop
3) Allow bookies to put as many as they like in their shop
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 13
|
By:
I don't know much about this... but seems to me these machines are just like casino games - gambling for gambling's sake (as opposed to gambling on something which exists anyway)... Do bookies need the same license as a casino to have FOBTs?
if I was in charge: 1) Make FOBT's illegal 2) Keep the limit of 4 per shop 3) Allow bookies to put as many as they like in their shop |
|
By:
I believe they get around needing a liscense by having the RNG elsewhere, off shore maybe even.
|
|
By:
corals/hills ect pay around 2.5k a year for each machine
the shop i have been working in is very quite and still makes around 3k-5k a week on these machines. |
|
By:
For me it seems either / or. Either get rid of them completely, or allow as many as they like.
The reason is that these machines are so profitable, that retail space is being taken from other (mainly small) businesses, just so that they can be filled with these FOBTs. I don't understand why someone would prefer a limit of 4 over no limit. If willhill thinks it can profitably operate 12 machines in a street, they will simply open 3 shops. Better to let them have 1 shop with 12 machines, and they won't bother opening 3. |
|
By:
12 machines in one shop would mean you need to wear ear defenders.
|
|
By:
I see what you're on about now. The are tons of bookies round here and I always thought it was starbucks/pret type strategy which explained the number, but your reason makes much more sense. There is even a local campaign.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/02/betting-shops-local-councils |
|
By:
Limit a shop to 4 and let councils limit the number of bookies allowed, so hill's or whatever can't just open 3 shops next to each other to get more of these machines.
|
|
By:
I agree with you Investor, do we know why the limit of 4 exists? Presumably it's down to think tank legislation to control problem gambling, only it doesn't, much like introducing a minimum alcohol unit price won't control problem drinking.
By comparison, why aren't (probably the same punters) limited to buying x amount of lottery tickets per week, or x amount of scratch cards. I would bet even more money is wasted by those that can least afford it on lotteries per week than fobt's. |
|
By:
I have always thought that the 4 per shop limit was a compromise with the casinos
|
|
By:
The Limit of 4 per shop was thought necessary to prevent to many stupid people gathering in one place.
|
|
By:
Let them have as many as they like, but have increased taxation on extra machines, e.g. 10% on the first machine, 20% on the second 30% on the third machine, etc.
|
|
By:
First and most important change - make sure that the gap between spins is exactly the game as it would be in a casino.
|
|
By:
TheInvestor2 22 Mar 12 17:36
Do you think the limit of 4 fixed odds betting terminals (FOBT) allowed per betting shop serves any purpose? Personally I think it makes sense to either ban them completely, or let the shops have as many as they like. These machines are so lucrative that the big bookies can fill a street with about ten bookies that cover running costs just from these machines. They make money and take up space that would otherwise be available to other retailers if the bookie could have more units in one outlet? I believe that the main purpose of having shops of the same chain within about 100 metres of each other is to pack in more FOBT's. What's wrong with the thousands of empty premises on most high streets at present? Other retailers either blind or broke!! Not the greatest point you've ever posted! |