Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 Feb 13
18:48
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
Saturday 2 February 2013 18:44
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk
THEY are described as the “crack cocaine of gambling” and allow punters to splurge up to £100 every 20 seconds, David Sharman investigates the draw of gaming machines.
MORE than £160m has been gambled on betting machines in Blackpool over the past year, a new report has claimed.
Estimates released by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling allege £163m has been wagered on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) at 43 different bookmakers across the resort.
And one councillor has even described the machines as “morally wrong”.
The FOBTs include electronic games such as roulette and blackjack, and allow gamers to spend up to £100 every 20 seconds.
They have been described as the “crack cocaine of gambling” by the report’s author Adrian Parkinson, who told The Gazette “the nature” of Blackpool was the reason for the high amount being chanced.
He said: “With Blackpool being a holiday destination you would imagine there’s quite a bit more gambling which goes on so there would be a higher amount.”
There are currently 156 FOBTs in Blackpool.
The report estimates £113m was gambled across the Blackpool South parliamentary constituency last year.
Coun John Jones, who represents Bloomfield ward on Blackpool Council, has campaigned for stricter restrictions on gambling across the resort.
He said: “I have doubts whether these machines should be allowed to be in betting shops.
“I know it’s lawful but whether they should be in there morally is another matter.
“People go in (to bookmakers) on low incomes thinking they’re going to make some money.
“It’s morally wrong to have these machines particularly when we’re heading into another recession and people are struggling because they’re having their benefits cut.
“People are looking at making a quick pound by gambling.”
The estimates take into account not just physical cash spent by players, but also credit staked on any winnings.
In MP Paul Maynard’s constituency of Blackpool North and Cleveleys, £49m was wagered on the machines in the last year.
He said: “The problem is not so much the amount of gambling occurring, but rather the effect of limits on the terminals leading to more bookmakers being located in the town centre.
“(FOBTs) are limited under the 2005 Gaming Act to just four per shop. Because of that, there is an incentive for the shops to cluster.
“You can have eight machines if you have two shops in close proximity, for example, but you can’t have eight in one shop.
“Bookmakers don’t require ‘change of use’ planning permission either, hence the speed with which they are appearing in so many areas.”
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk
THEY are described as the “crack cocaine of gambling” and allow punters to splurge up to £100 every 20 seconds, David Sharman investigates the draw of gaming machines.
MORE than £160m has been gambled on betting machines in Blackpool over the past year, a new report has claimed.
Estimates released by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling allege £163m has been wagered on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) at 43 different bookmakers across the resort.
And one councillor has even described the machines as “morally wrong”.
The FOBTs include electronic games such as roulette and blackjack, and allow gamers to spend up to £100 every 20 seconds.
They have been described as the “crack cocaine of gambling” by the report’s author Adrian Parkinson, who told The Gazette “the nature” of Blackpool was the reason for the high amount being chanced.
He said: “With Blackpool being a holiday destination you would imagine there’s quite a bit more gambling which goes on so there would be a higher amount.”
There are currently 156 FOBTs in Blackpool.
The report estimates £113m was gambled across the Blackpool South parliamentary constituency last year.
Coun John Jones, who represents Bloomfield ward on Blackpool Council, has campaigned for stricter restrictions on gambling across the resort.
He said: “I have doubts whether these machines should be allowed to be in betting shops.
“I know it’s lawful but whether they should be in there morally is another matter.
“People go in (to bookmakers) on low incomes thinking they’re going to make some money.
“It’s morally wrong to have these machines particularly when we’re heading into another recession and people are struggling because they’re having their benefits cut.
“People are looking at making a quick pound by gambling.”
The estimates take into account not just physical cash spent by players, but also credit staked on any winnings.
In MP Paul Maynard’s constituency of Blackpool North and Cleveleys, £49m was wagered on the machines in the last year.
He said: “The problem is not so much the amount of gambling occurring, but rather the effect of limits on the terminals leading to more bookmakers being located in the town centre.
“(FOBTs) are limited under the 2005 Gaming Act to just four per shop. Because of that, there is an incentive for the shops to cluster.
“You can have eight machines if you have two shops in close proximity, for example, but you can’t have eight in one shop.
“Bookmakers don’t require ‘change of use’ planning permission either, hence the speed with which they are appearing in so many areas.”
Show More
It might have been more sensible of 1st time poster to have stuck to his nomenclature, and he/she might have embarrassed himself/herself less often.
I need a "shakes head in disbelief" emoticon.
I need a "shakes head in disbelief" emoticon.
Las Vegas was a desert in the 1930
Today its the gambling capital of the world
OK they have the best hotels
the best hospitality
the best people for your every needs
its show time Frank Sinitra, Dean Martin , Elvis
if you aint ever been you should & take the wife
slots mean nowt to me but the wife was having a bit of fun
& dropped a jackpot she's on the wall of winners
You guys should try it ...its fun and fun never hurt anyone .
Today its the gambling capital of the world
OK they have the best hotels
the best hospitality
the best people for your every needs
its show time Frank Sinitra, Dean Martin , Elvis
if you aint ever been you should & take the wife
slots mean nowt to me but the wife was having a bit of fun
& dropped a jackpot she's on the wall of winners
You guys should try it ...its fun and fun never hurt anyone .
Northanlite - Do you believe you are in a position to judge whether or not each of the thousands of FOBT customers are being exploited or exercising their own personal choice. How do you distinguish between the two and what proportion have you found in each camp?
WFT - You are forgiven!
People are simply flagging up that it seems a little ironic that you have chosen the forum of one of the largest gambling providers to express your puritanical anti-gambling tirade. If you have concerns about problem gambling why only discuss FOBTs? Did problem gambling exist pre 2002? Does it exist in Ireland?
WFT - You are forgiven!
People are simply flagging up that it seems a little ironic that you have chosen the forum of one of the largest gambling providers to express your puritanical anti-gambling tirade. If you have concerns about problem gambling why only discuss FOBTs? Did problem gambling exist pre 2002? Does it exist in Ireland?
People are simply flagging up that it seems a little ironic that you have chosen the forum of one of the largest gambling providers to express your puritanical anti-gambling tirade.
Let's get this right. I'm not anti-gambling, I'm anti-FOBTs. I gamble every day, usually successfully, despite every unfair attempt by bookmakers to stop this. Answer me this simple question. Do you think it's fair for a bookmaker to have no restrictions on the amount staked on FOBTs, but all have restrictions on how much I can stake in a horse race ?
If you have concerns about problem gambling why only discuss FOBTs? Did problem gambling exist pre 2002? Does it exist in Ireland?
AS far as I am personally concerned, FOBTs are the only problem area, so it would be a little silly of me to discuss other areas. Yes, it existed pre-2002, and yes it exists in Ireland. As a gambling man, I happy to have a bet with you that the percentage of problem gamblers has risen more in the UK than it has in Ireland. The difference ? FOBTs !
Let's get this right. I'm not anti-gambling, I'm anti-FOBTs. I gamble every day, usually successfully, despite every unfair attempt by bookmakers to stop this. Answer me this simple question. Do you think it's fair for a bookmaker to have no restrictions on the amount staked on FOBTs, but all have restrictions on how much I can stake in a horse race ?
If you have concerns about problem gambling why only discuss FOBTs? Did problem gambling exist pre 2002? Does it exist in Ireland?
AS far as I am personally concerned, FOBTs are the only problem area, so it would be a little silly of me to discuss other areas. Yes, it existed pre-2002, and yes it exists in Ireland. As a gambling man, I happy to have a bet with you that the percentage of problem gamblers has risen more in the UK than it has in Ireland. The difference ? FOBTs !
I find it quite amusing that bookmaking industry used the FOBT acronym for these wretched machines.
Some of you may know that FOBT also stands for Faecal Occult Blood Test. This is a test that people have to see if your bowel has a cancerous tumour.
Strange how one FOBT is trying to combat cancer, whilst the other tries to spread it !
Some of you may know that FOBT also stands for Faecal Occult Blood Test. This is a test that people have to see if your bowel has a cancerous tumour.
Strange how one FOBT is trying to combat cancer, whilst the other tries to spread it !
AS far as I am personally concerned, FOBTs are the only problem area
Online perhaps?
Online perhaps?
said it before but i am 100% sure clive82 is fully aware (perhaps more s than most) of the addictive nature of these particular machines and the exploitive clustering of shops in certain areas. in fact it is the very nature of the product and the huge guaranteed returns his overlords enjoy that force him on here with his ever more desperate defence of them.
dis·in·gen·u·ous (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
4. clive82
dis·in·gen·u·ous (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
4. clive82
Well you've talked of your love of evidence so here you go. UK problem gambling rate 0.9%, the FOBT free oasis across the Irish sea 1.4%.
"I happy to have a bet with you that the percentage of problem gamblers has risen more in the UK than it has in Ireland. The difference ? FOBTs !"
On the evidence of this bet, I find it hard to believe you've ever been restricted in your life! However, interesting to note despite your wittering about morals and public protection you are actually motivated by nothing more then your inability to get your grubby arbs on. So your contributions to this thread have been a barely coherent smokescreen.
"I happy to have a bet with you that the percentage of problem gamblers has risen more in the UK than it has in Ireland. The difference ? FOBTs !"
On the evidence of this bet, I find it hard to believe you've ever been restricted in your life! However, interesting to note despite your wittering about morals and public protection you are actually motivated by nothing more then your inability to get your grubby arbs on. So your contributions to this thread have been a barely coherent smokescreen.
Think you have to take the political analysis of a man who becomes an unelected peer for a party wishing to abolish unelected peers with a significant pinch of salt.
Political analysis clive? No, it wasn't. Try another deflection.
Political analysis clive? No, it wasn't. Try another deflection.
Well you've talked of your love of evidence so here you go. UK problem gambling rate 0.9%, the FOBT free oasis across the Irish sea 1.4%.
"I happy to have a bet with you that the percentage of problem gamblers has risen more in the UK than it has in Ireland. The difference ? FOBTs !"
Clive, Clive, Clive, You didn't read my post properly. I meant the rate of increase in problem gambling would be higher in the UK than Ireland (I thought I said this clear enough, not the numbers that now stand (if your stats are indeed correct as you quote no source). No doubt you made a "palpable error" ! It's good though that you recognise that problem gamblers exist. I had you down as a denier.
On the evidence of this bet, I find it hard to believe you've ever been restricted in your life! Tell me what bookmakers you work for, and I'll give user usernames of closed/restricted accounts. That's real proof.
However, interesting to note despite your wittering about morals and public protection you are actually motivated by nothing more then your inability to get your grubby arbs on. So your contributions to this thread have been a barely coherent smokescreen.
Here we go again with arbs. Why exactly is your industry so obsessed with them ? You seem to have it in your simple minds, that anyone taking a best price, which you idiots offer after all, is only taking it so they can lay it off on an exchange. Can you not get it into your simple minds, that there are many discerning punters out there who take the price, simply because it gives a better return should it win ? Also, I think it's a bit rich that you should accuse others of putting up a smokescreen. I thought this was probably the only thing in life that you were better than me on, bit it seems I was wrong on that.
"I happy to have a bet with you that the percentage of problem gamblers has risen more in the UK than it has in Ireland. The difference ? FOBTs !"
Clive, Clive, Clive, You didn't read my post properly. I meant the rate of increase in problem gambling would be higher in the UK than Ireland (I thought I said this clear enough, not the numbers that now stand (if your stats are indeed correct as you quote no source). No doubt you made a "palpable error" ! It's good though that you recognise that problem gamblers exist. I had you down as a denier.
On the evidence of this bet, I find it hard to believe you've ever been restricted in your life! Tell me what bookmakers you work for, and I'll give user usernames of closed/restricted accounts. That's real proof.
However, interesting to note despite your wittering about morals and public protection you are actually motivated by nothing more then your inability to get your grubby arbs on. So your contributions to this thread have been a barely coherent smokescreen.
Here we go again with arbs. Why exactly is your industry so obsessed with them ? You seem to have it in your simple minds, that anyone taking a best price, which you idiots offer after all, is only taking it so they can lay it off on an exchange. Can you not get it into your simple minds, that there are many discerning punters out there who take the price, simply because it gives a better return should it win ? Also, I think it's a bit rich that you should accuse others of putting up a smokescreen. I thought this was probably the only thing in life that you were better than me on, bit it seems I was wrong on that.
Getting pretty desperate now isn't it? So your concern is the UK's 10 year experiment with FOBTs is putting us in danger of having problem gambling levels comparable with FOBT free Ireland. But FOBTs remain the 'only problem area'!!
I don't work for a bookmaker, but if i did I would welcome your business, if only for the chance to hear more of your pearls of wisdom.
I don't work for a bookmaker, but if i did I would welcome your business, if only for the chance to hear more of your pearls of wisdom.
Getting pretty desperate now isn't it?
I agree you have become desperate.
So your concern is the UK's 10 year experiment with FOBTs is putting us in danger of having problem gambling levels comparable with FOBT free Ireland.
You brought Ireland into the debate, not me. It would seem you wouldn't be happy until we had problem levels up there with the worst in the world. Shouldn't we be aiming to reduce the levels, not just ignore them becuase someone else is worse off than us ?
But FOBTs remain the 'only problem area'!!
Again, this thread is only about FOBTs. If you want to open another thread about another problem area, I'd be only too happy to discuss.
I don't work for a bookmaker, but if i did I would welcome your business, if only for the chance to hear more of your pearls of wisdom.
Don't let the fact that you don't work for a bookmaker stop you from taking my bets. I suppose my only problem would be trying to get my winnings. Given that you seem to wish anonymous I might have trouble finding you when you renege. Come on, Clive, tell us what you really do. It can't be worse than a bookmaker, could it ? Could it ? You're not really an MP like your avatar, are you ? Is there anything else that could be worse ?
I agree you have become desperate.
So your concern is the UK's 10 year experiment with FOBTs is putting us in danger of having problem gambling levels comparable with FOBT free Ireland.
You brought Ireland into the debate, not me. It would seem you wouldn't be happy until we had problem levels up there with the worst in the world. Shouldn't we be aiming to reduce the levels, not just ignore them becuase someone else is worse off than us ?
But FOBTs remain the 'only problem area'!!
Again, this thread is only about FOBTs. If you want to open another thread about another problem area, I'd be only too happy to discuss.
I don't work for a bookmaker, but if i did I would welcome your business, if only for the chance to hear more of your pearls of wisdom.
Don't let the fact that you don't work for a bookmaker stop you from taking my bets. I suppose my only problem would be trying to get my winnings. Given that you seem to wish anonymous I might have trouble finding you when you renege. Come on, Clive, tell us what you really do. It can't be worse than a bookmaker, could it ? Could it ? You're not really an MP like your avatar, are you ? Is there anything else that could be worse ?
I've discovered who Clive82 is !!
http://www.singlesbee.com/view_profile_allinone.htm?uid=11132118
http://www.singlesbee.com/view_profile_allinone.htm?uid=11132118
Clive, what is the source for the figure that you say represents the amount of problem gamblers in the Republic Of Ireland?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q-5a3H8qyIo
I havent seen any reports that suggest billions has been betted and lost in Ireland, just the FOBT problem over here!
The amount lost per capita on gambling in Ireland is nearly 50% higher than the UK figure.
No wonder they don't let them have machines.
Perhaps we should all be turning our attentions to the shocking state of reckless gambling over there.
No wonder they don't let them have machines.
Perhaps we should all be turning our attentions to the shocking state of reckless gambling over there.
Where is the source of your information, perhaps you will provide what Clive can't.
It was a widely published report.
I'll see if I can find a link.
I'll see if I can find a link.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/05/gambling
This article shows the table.
Aside from the UK/Ireland comparison the most notable feature is the Australian figure. I recall some figures from the Queensland govt that showed that the pokies in their state made £120m per month. That means that Queensland on its own with a population of about 4.5 million spend as much on pokies as the whole of the UK do on FOBTs.
Now that is some serious machine play! It equates to a spend per capita not far off 15 times higher than the UK FOBT spend. I realise that far more people play them in Australia but even so that is a pretty stark comparison.
This article shows the table.
Aside from the UK/Ireland comparison the most notable feature is the Australian figure. I recall some figures from the Queensland govt that showed that the pokies in their state made £120m per month. That means that Queensland on its own with a population of about 4.5 million spend as much on pokies as the whole of the UK do on FOBTs.
Now that is some serious machine play! It equates to a spend per capita not far off 15 times higher than the UK FOBT spend. I realise that far more people play them in Australia but even so that is a pretty stark comparison.
It amazes me that when big firms are caught out fleecing the public using unfair means, a whole gaggle of folk
arrive with comments and counter reasons in the hope of re-fitting new blinkers on the poor general public, shame on you and you/we know who your are
arrive with comments and counter reasons in the hope of re-fitting new blinkers on the poor general public, shame on you and you/we know who your are
Banned_Banks • February 3, 2013 8:29 PM GMT
The amount lost per capita on gambling in Ireland is nearly 50% higher than the UK figure.
No wonder they don't let them have machines.
Perhaps we should all be turning our attentions to the shocking state of reckless gambling over there.
Rubbish, wheres the proof?
The amount lost per capita on gambling in Ireland is nearly 50% higher than the UK figure.
No wonder they don't let them have machines.
Perhaps we should all be turning our attentions to the shocking state of reckless gambling over there.
Rubbish, wheres the proof?
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/were-risktakers-but-are-we-addicted-to-gambling-you-betcha-3367264.html
Today, the likes of Paddy Power, Betfair and Ladbrokes (to name just a few) have a highly visible presence on our high streets, online, on TV and on the jerseys of your favourite GAA or Premiership football team.
It is right at the heart of public life. How do we start every presidential or general election? With the candidates standing outside the bookies holding a big cardboard sign with the odds. From politics to the Eurovision, to plot-lines in Fair City or the All-Ireland Final, every major event is partly another excuse for a flutter.
Smartphones –with their gambling apps – have put a virtual bookies in everybody's pocket. And it's open 24/7.
You can quite easily gamble away next month's mortgage payment in a couple of minutes from the comfort of your couch or barstool.
And we love to gamble online. Economists reckon that the online betting market could be worth up to €2bn in Ireland this year.
Today, the likes of Paddy Power, Betfair and Ladbrokes (to name just a few) have a highly visible presence on our high streets, online, on TV and on the jerseys of your favourite GAA or Premiership football team.
It is right at the heart of public life. How do we start every presidential or general election? With the candidates standing outside the bookies holding a big cardboard sign with the odds. From politics to the Eurovision, to plot-lines in Fair City or the All-Ireland Final, every major event is partly another excuse for a flutter.
Smartphones –with their gambling apps – have put a virtual bookies in everybody's pocket. And it's open 24/7.
You can quite easily gamble away next month's mortgage payment in a couple of minutes from the comfort of your couch or barstool.
And we love to gamble online. Economists reckon that the online betting market could be worth up to €2bn in Ireland this year.
Whats the uk online gambling market worth currently?
heres a clue to uk online market
A huge increase in gambling addicts will make Britain's obsession with online betting a £2bn business. New evidence reveals that the number of people in danger of becoming problem gamblers has reached nearly a million, while hardcore addicts have doubled in six years to almost 500,000. MPs are considering legislation to try to reverse the trend, as online companies vie for bigger shares of the market with blanket advertising and introductory offers.
A huge increase in gambling addicts will make Britain's obsession with online betting a £2bn business. New evidence reveals that the number of people in danger of becoming problem gamblers has reached nearly a million, while hardcore addicts have doubled in six years to almost 500,000. MPs are considering legislation to try to reverse the trend, as online companies vie for bigger shares of the market with blanket advertising and introductory offers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/addiction-soars-as-online-gambling-hits-2bn-mark-8468376.html
uk figures source
uk figures source
So both markets are worth the same but whats the population figures for both countries to work out the difference with each country and also how many actually gamble in both countries?
I suspect the culture is the same in both countries so it must be similar amounts of ratio of gamblers per population.
Rubbish, wheres the proof?
Bf_fanatic the link is posted 2 posts above your question albeit I realise that you probably don't read any responses. Perhaps a blog would be more appropriate for you. That way you could simply repeat the same comments endlessly without the need to construct any coherent responses.
Bf_fanatic the link is posted 2 posts above your question albeit I realise that you probably don't read any responses. Perhaps a blog would be more appropriate for you. That way you could simply repeat the same comments endlessly without the need to construct any coherent responses.
The population of the island of Ireland in 2012 was approximately 6.3 million comprising 4.58 million in the Republic of Ireland with another 1.8 million in Northern Ireland.
Well the irish do love a flutter it seems!
But it begs the question why has betak done so poorly in its own country at capturing the huge market of online gambling as opposed to betfair in the UK?
I suspect that the site doesnt come across as very good as it has a very poor front face design and the colour
is awful too...
But it begs the question why has betak done so poorly in its own country at capturing the huge market of online gambling as opposed to betfair in the UK?
I suspect that the site doesnt come across as very good as it has a very poor front face design and the colour
is awful too...
The report is not a report into problem gambling but merely an estimated loss amount per head per year, showing a dollar loss per head of $590 in the Republic Of Ireland, even though it's not made clear if the North is included.
It includes National Lottery spending and is based on "adults" aged 17.
The Republic Of Ireland has one of the highest spend per capita on the National Lottery and Euromillions in Europe.
The legal age to gamble in the Republic Of Ireland is 18 not 17.
Again, it's an estimated loss per head and not a report into problem gambling.
There has never been a definitive, detailed report into problem gambling in the Republic Of Ireland.
The Institute of Public Health, published an all Ireland estimate into problem gambling, giving a range of between .60% and 1.00%, but as this is inclusive of the North, where there are FOBTs and their report states that the biggest source of problem gambling in the North is down to adolescent gambling on FOBTs where the problem gambling among them accounts for 2-3 times the rate of adults.
It includes National Lottery spending and is based on "adults" aged 17.
The Republic Of Ireland has one of the highest spend per capita on the National Lottery and Euromillions in Europe.
The legal age to gamble in the Republic Of Ireland is 18 not 17.
Again, it's an estimated loss per head and not a report into problem gambling.
There has never been a definitive, detailed report into problem gambling in the Republic Of Ireland.
The Institute of Public Health, published an all Ireland estimate into problem gambling, giving a range of between .60% and 1.00%, but as this is inclusive of the North, where there are FOBTs and their report states that the biggest source of problem gambling in the North is down to adolescent gambling on FOBTs where the problem gambling among them accounts for 2-3 times the rate of adults.
Gandalf do you actually read what is written on here or do you just see what you want to see?
The data I provided was in response to the request from bf_fanatic who asked where there was evidence that gambling spend is higher in Ireland. You also appear to have had a problem understanding the most basic of data tables. You waffle on about the legal age for gambling in Rep of Ireland being 18 not 17 yet you appear not to have understood that the table clearly indicates that the data relates to everyone aged 17 or over not just those aged 17.
It is no wonder that clive82 ridicules you. The ammunition available to him is immense.
The data I provided was in response to the request from bf_fanatic who asked where there was evidence that gambling spend is higher in Ireland. You also appear to have had a problem understanding the most basic of data tables. You waffle on about the legal age for gambling in Rep of Ireland being 18 not 17 yet you appear not to have understood that the table clearly indicates that the data relates to everyone aged 17 or over not just those aged 17.
It is no wonder that clive82 ridicules you. The ammunition available to him is immense.
Happy to share where the stats included in my post came from Gandalf. Just as soon as you explain your claim that you can lose £14k an hour on an FOBT. Come on, you've had over a month now. We all know you can spell 'substance' but can you provide any?
clive , unless i have missed something .
1 spin every 20 seconds for £100
3 spins per minute would eaqual £300
£300 x 60 minutes = £18,000
it may be highly unlikely to lose every spin , but it is also highly unlikely that you will win the lottery , but somebody does every week or so .the likelyness is not the question, it's whether it is possible or not . which looking at the maths it is .
1 spin every 20 seconds for £100
3 spins per minute would eaqual £300
£300 x 60 minutes = £18,000
it may be highly unlikely to lose every spin , but it is also highly unlikely that you will win the lottery , but somebody does every week or so .the likelyness is not the question, it's whether it is possible or not . which looking at the maths it is .
What is crystal clear is that there are many forumites that are so anti FOBTs,that it is destroying their sense of logic.
Every argument put forward is badly flawed.
It is possible to lose a large sum in a short space of time in ANY form of gambling,and the above example would apply to practically nobody at all.(£18,000/hr)
Go into any casino,something that I am sure many posters on this topic have never done,and as far back as I can remember,the tables have always had their share of ladies playing on them.So now some play in the shops,which plainly obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with horseracing.Some posters implied that they are taking money away from over the counter business,not at all.
Some imply that there wouldn't be so many restrictions without the machine profits.Again badlyt flawed,as companies that don't operate machines in shops still give restrictions.
Targeting the needy and poor.Yet again badly flawed,as there have always been LBOs in "deprived areas".It is the working man's choice of pursuit.
Enticing people to play.Again nobody is forced to enter the premises,then when in,nobody is forced to play,it is simply the individual's choice.
The expression"crack cocaine of gambling" when refering to the machines,again is seriously flawed,as drugs like crack,or alcohol can seriously distort the taker's thinking.So how can an electronis terminal distort a player's mind?
Whether it be drugs,alcohol,gambling,eating disorders,there will always be a proportion with an addictive nature,who will go over the top,that's life.
Yes,the FOBTs are making big profits,but remember so were LBOs in the early pre machine days.
The late John Banks,a very streetwise bookmaker,described them as "a licence to print money".
The profits made by casinos in their heyday were massive,nobody bleated about it.
It all boils down to freedom of choice.People are free to spend their earnt,or unearnt money in whichever way they choose to do,so why should there be such concern.Posters appear to think that gamblers didn't used to lose large sums,well they always have done,and always will do.
No doubt there will be the usual ridicule ,and challenges,from the regular posters on this topic.Well it isn't for me to prove anything at all,as I am not the one constantly bleating about the dangers of the machines.It is up to those posters to come up with the figures for problem gamblers pre machines,and post machines,and the comparisons with other forms of gambling,as it appears there are scratch card addicts too.It is called FACTS,and the FACTS tell the real story,as opposed to assumptions,imagination,guesswork etc.
Every argument put forward is badly flawed.
It is possible to lose a large sum in a short space of time in ANY form of gambling,and the above example would apply to practically nobody at all.(£18,000/hr)
Go into any casino,something that I am sure many posters on this topic have never done,and as far back as I can remember,the tables have always had their share of ladies playing on them.So now some play in the shops,which plainly obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with horseracing.Some posters implied that they are taking money away from over the counter business,not at all.
Some imply that there wouldn't be so many restrictions without the machine profits.Again badlyt flawed,as companies that don't operate machines in shops still give restrictions.
Targeting the needy and poor.Yet again badly flawed,as there have always been LBOs in "deprived areas".It is the working man's choice of pursuit.
Enticing people to play.Again nobody is forced to enter the premises,then when in,nobody is forced to play,it is simply the individual's choice.
The expression"crack cocaine of gambling" when refering to the machines,again is seriously flawed,as drugs like crack,or alcohol can seriously distort the taker's thinking.So how can an electronis terminal distort a player's mind?
Whether it be drugs,alcohol,gambling,eating disorders,there will always be a proportion with an addictive nature,who will go over the top,that's life.
Yes,the FOBTs are making big profits,but remember so were LBOs in the early pre machine days.
The late John Banks,a very streetwise bookmaker,described them as "a licence to print money".
The profits made by casinos in their heyday were massive,nobody bleated about it.
It all boils down to freedom of choice.People are free to spend their earnt,or unearnt money in whichever way they choose to do,so why should there be such concern.Posters appear to think that gamblers didn't used to lose large sums,well they always have done,and always will do.
No doubt there will be the usual ridicule ,and challenges,from the regular posters on this topic.Well it isn't for me to prove anything at all,as I am not the one constantly bleating about the dangers of the machines.It is up to those posters to come up with the figures for problem gamblers pre machines,and post machines,and the comparisons with other forms of gambling,as it appears there are scratch card addicts too.It is called FACTS,and the FACTS tell the real story,as opposed to assumptions,imagination,guesswork etc.
Highly unlikely is somewhat of an understatement.
If every adult in the UK played the machines once every day the probability is that the £18,000 losing streak would happen around once every 600 million years.
In fact you are over 50,000 times more likely to win the lottery twice in a row than to experience such a run.
Of course it is also possible, although highly unlikley, to win £86,625 in an hour.
If every adult in the UK played the machines once every day the probability is that the £18,000 losing streak would happen around once every 600 million years.
In fact you are over 50,000 times more likely to win the lottery twice in a row than to experience such a run.
Of course it is also possible, although highly unlikley, to win £86,625 in an hour.
banks, is it possible to lose £18,000 in 1 hour
yes/no
yes/no
and the above example would apply to practically nobody at all.(£18,000/hr)
what do you mean by that ?
what do you mean by that ?
banks ,if you are calculating by previous events using maths , is it possible to use maths to past numbers given the 97.5% return to earn money on fobts ?
banks, is it possible to lose £18,000 in 1 hour
yes/no
Yes.
It is also possible to win £86,625 in an hour however neither figure is relevant as they are such statistical outliers that for the purposes of rational discussion they should be ignored unless you are worried about something that will likely never happen.
In fact if you use my 600 million years figure above and make it more realistic by restricting it to machine players only rather than the whole adult population there is a higher probability that the sun will die before any regular machine player experiences such a run.
Maybe it would be a fitting way for life on earth to end. I can picture Gandalf's ancestor frantically trying to get in the 180th and final losing spin as the sun which is now a red giant starts to consume the Earth.
yes/no
Yes.
It is also possible to win £86,625 in an hour however neither figure is relevant as they are such statistical outliers that for the purposes of rational discussion they should be ignored unless you are worried about something that will likely never happen.
In fact if you use my 600 million years figure above and make it more realistic by restricting it to machine players only rather than the whole adult population there is a higher probability that the sun will die before any regular machine player experiences such a run.
Maybe it would be a fitting way for life on earth to end. I can picture Gandalf's ancestor frantically trying to get in the 180th and final losing spin as the sun which is now a red giant starts to consume the Earth.
Well Harold, I think that is what the youth of today call getting "owned!"
explain yourself clive ?
something is either possible or not possible . whether it is likely or not to happen is not the question .
banks , what are the odds of winning the lottery twice ?
something is either possible or not possible . whether it is likely or not to happen is not the question .
banks , what are the odds of winning the lottery twice ?
banks , what are the odds of winning the lottery twice ?
195,547,109,921,855/1
195,547,109,921,855/1
so , although very unlikely to win it once at 14,000,000/1 and incredibly unlikely to win it twice at odds of 195,547,109,921,855/1 , it is possible and has been done .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/6515930/South-African-man-wins-lottery-twice.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-142457/Five-trillion-Punter-scoops-second-lottery-win-numbers-By-David-Wilkes.html#axzz2JvvCgCwr
hello clive
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/6515930/South-African-man-wins-lottery-twice.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-142457/Five-trillion-Punter-scoops-second-lottery-win-numbers-By-David-Wilkes.html#axzz2JvvCgCwr
hello clive
harold_lloyd I'm going to guess that you were not a statistics whizz at school!
The first example covers 7 years of play and covers the whole of the world. This increases the sample size of players from the low millions to over 6 billion.
The second example has the man in question getting 5 plus the bonus ball twice which is way more likely than getting all 6.
Increasing the sample size from a few million to 6 billion, adding in multiple lifetime plays as opposed to consecutive draws etc makes the examples you give many trillions of time more likely that getting 180 losing spins in a row.
In fact if that is the best there is then I reckon I will still have my tenner on the sun buring out before the 180 losing spin run occurs.
At a rough guess I reckon the odds of
The first example covers 7 years of play and covers the whole of the world. This increases the sample size of players from the low millions to over 6 billion.
The second example has the man in question getting 5 plus the bonus ball twice which is way more likely than getting all 6.
Increasing the sample size from a few million to 6 billion, adding in multiple lifetime plays as opposed to consecutive draws etc makes the examples you give many trillions of time more likely that getting 180 losing spins in a row.
In fact if that is the best there is then I reckon I will still have my tenner on the sun buring out before the 180 losing spin run occurs.
At a rough guess I reckon the odds of
banks, how did you work out your fobt odds ?
did you takle into account every fobt in the country ?
every player .
or did you just base it on one player for one fobt , putting £100 on one number at a time ?
show your workings out please
btw banks , what are the odds of one person winning the lottery twice with a gap of seven years ?
thanks
did you takle into account every fobt in the country ?
every player .
or did you just base it on one player for one fobt , putting £100 on one number at a time ?
show your workings out please
btw banks , what are the odds of one person winning the lottery twice with a gap of seven years ?
thanks
Harold, your postings about what may be theoretically possible do not advance the debate.
Those of us who are anti these machines and want to see restrictions placed upon them accept, by and large, that people are free to gamble. The issue is to what extent restrictions should be placed on them. That there should be restrictions is surely self evident? Otherwise untold damage would be the outcome.
The issue that I and I believe many posters have is the combination of a) relatively high stakes b) speed of play and c) the design of the machines which seemingly induce an almost hypnotic state in some players.
It is those issues that need resolving irrespective of whether it is theoretically possible to lose £18,000 or win £80,000 + a hour.
Those of us who are anti these machines and want to see restrictions placed upon them accept, by and large, that people are free to gamble. The issue is to what extent restrictions should be placed on them. That there should be restrictions is surely self evident? Otherwise untold damage would be the outcome.
The issue that I and I believe many posters have is the combination of a) relatively high stakes b) speed of play and c) the design of the machines which seemingly induce an almost hypnotic state in some players.
It is those issues that need resolving irrespective of whether it is theoretically possible to lose £18,000 or win £80,000 + a hour.
parispike, that is very true , i was just responding to clives 09.16 post and as usual the spinners have spun it 
the fact is you can lose over £15,000 in an hour , whether you will or not doesn't matter , the fact is that it is possible .
fact
the fact is you can lose over £15,000 in an hour , whether you will or not doesn't matter , the fact is that it is possible .
fact
The FOBT propaganda merchants will seize on any area they perceive as weakness Harold in an attempt to divert attention from the real issue.
For that reason I believe it is best to stick to the issues that really matter. I believe I have outlined those.
For that reason I believe it is best to stick to the issues that really matter. I believe I have outlined those.
My 600 million years stat is based on every UK adult (assuming population size remains constant) having 1 attempt per day to hit the 180 losers in a row. They must stake the full £100 and as a result cover at least 8 numbers per spin.
Each spin is roughly 78% to be a loser and 22% to be a winner.
If you take 0.78378 to the power of 180 and multiply it by 365 (days in year) x number of UK adults x 600,000,000 (number of years it will take) and you get to 1.
If you restrict this to just FOBT players you get to a timescale that outlives the sun!
Each spin is roughly 78% to be a loser and 22% to be a winner.
If you take 0.78378 to the power of 180 and multiply it by 365 (days in year) x number of UK adults x 600,000,000 (number of years it will take) and you get to 1.
If you restrict this to just FOBT players you get to a timescale that outlives the sun!
btw banks , what are the odds of one person winning the lottery twice with a gap of seven years ?
Possibility of any one person winning it twice worldwide or possibility of a specific person winning it twice?
Average number of players?
Average number of entries per person?
Possibility of any one person winning it twice worldwide or possibility of a specific person winning it twice?
Average number of players?
Average number of entries per person?
"That there should be restrictions is surely self evident?"
No
"Otherwise untold damage would be the outcome."
What untold damage?
No
"Otherwise untold damage would be the outcome."
What untold damage?
one person winning it twice
playing one entry per week
playing one entry per week
the fact is you can lose over £15,000 in an hour , whether you will or not doesn't matter , the fact is that it is possible .
fact
If it is expected that the Sun will disappear before a particular event takes place I think it is reasonable for any sane person to discount this event in their reasoning.
To suggest that it forms the cornerstone of a rational argument is more than a little questionable.
fact
If it is expected that the Sun will disappear before a particular event takes place I think it is reasonable for any sane person to discount this event in their reasoning.
To suggest that it forms the cornerstone of a rational argument is more than a little questionable.
Banned_Banks
Date Joined: 29 Apr 12
Add contact | Send message
04 Feb 13 12:29
Joined:
29 Apr 12
| Topic/replies: 1,150 | Blogger: Banned_Banks's blog
banks, is it possible to lose £18,000 in 1 hour
yes/no
Yes.
Date Joined: 29 Apr 12
Add contact | Send message
04 Feb 13 12:29
Joined:
29 Apr 12
| Topic/replies: 1,150 | Blogger: Banned_Banks's blog
banks, is it possible to lose £18,000 in 1 hour
yes/no
Yes.
I refer back to my comments about your somewhat limited statistical understanding.
clive82
No restrictions on FOBTs but plenty of restrictions applied to anyone who shows a modicum of ability where there is an element of value judgement possible.
That's modern "bookmaking" for you
No restrictions on FOBTs but plenty of restrictions applied to anyone who shows a modicum of ability where there is an element of value judgement possible.
That's modern "bookmaking" for you
banks, is it possible to lose £18,000 in 1 hour
yes/no
Yes.
the question does not ask if it is likely or not .
yes/no
Yes.
the question does not ask if it is likely or not .
That's some question coming from you clive82. No and I not stupid but nor have I the moral compass of a parasitic piee of vermin like you.......
MP:'Give local councilsmore power to decide how many FOBT's go in to a shop'
Feb 4 2013 by Daniel Johnson, Liverpool Echo
THREE Liverpool constituencies in the top 50 unemployment blackspots rank highly in terms of betting shops, machines and the amount gambled.
In Bootle, which takes in Riverside and Walton constituencies, a combined £440m was bet at 422 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in 2011.
Walton MP Steve Rotheram was part of a parliamentary committee which recommended that local councils should have the power to decide if the number of machines per shop goes up or down.
He told the ECHO: “This particular issue polarizes opinion, because on the one hand people are free to choose to bet, but on the other these extreme clusters of betting shops can be damaging.
“At present there is an almost arbitrary cap of four. Some of my Tory colleagues on the committee wanted it removed but we managed to recommend that local authorities should be allowed to decide if the number of machines is increased or decreased. In Riverside and Walton there are already an extremely high number of these machines, known as the ‘crack-cocaine’ of gambling because they are so addictive.”
In a letter to a national newspaper, some of Mr Rotheram’s Labour colleagues have accused the betting industry of taking advantage of these blackspots and likened bookies to pay-day loan companies.
Mr Rotheram said he has “sympathy with the sentiments” of his fellow Labour MPs, but decided not sign their letter.
Areas in Wirral have markedly lower numbers of betting shops and FOBTs than in Liverpool.
In Wallasey there are just 15 machines in four shops, with three shops in Wirral south housing 11 machines.
Just under £76m was gambled at 73 FOBTs in West Derby.
Feb 4 2013 by Daniel Johnson, Liverpool Echo
THREE Liverpool constituencies in the top 50 unemployment blackspots rank highly in terms of betting shops, machines and the amount gambled.
In Bootle, which takes in Riverside and Walton constituencies, a combined £440m was bet at 422 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in 2011.
Walton MP Steve Rotheram was part of a parliamentary committee which recommended that local councils should have the power to decide if the number of machines per shop goes up or down.
He told the ECHO: “This particular issue polarizes opinion, because on the one hand people are free to choose to bet, but on the other these extreme clusters of betting shops can be damaging.
“At present there is an almost arbitrary cap of four. Some of my Tory colleagues on the committee wanted it removed but we managed to recommend that local authorities should be allowed to decide if the number of machines is increased or decreased. In Riverside and Walton there are already an extremely high number of these machines, known as the ‘crack-cocaine’ of gambling because they are so addictive.”
In a letter to a national newspaper, some of Mr Rotheram’s Labour colleagues have accused the betting industry of taking advantage of these blackspots and likened bookies to pay-day loan companies.
Mr Rotheram said he has “sympathy with the sentiments” of his fellow Labour MPs, but decided not sign their letter.
Areas in Wirral have markedly lower numbers of betting shops and FOBTs than in Liverpool.
In Wallasey there are just 15 machines in four shops, with three shops in Wirral south housing 11 machines.
Just under £76m was gambled at 73 FOBTs in West Derby.
Both Labour and the Con-dems have done nothing to control the problem of FOBTs despite numerous attempts by many bodies to bring it up in parliament, so the performance of the governments handling of certain betting company practices matching all the other performance figures as we dwell in triple-dip recession melt down.
MPs must stop sleeping with the wrong sort of people...
MPs must stop sleeping with the wrong sort of people...
The Roman Empire accepted that vice was an important part of Romes Economy and even Issued brothel tokens to its
leaders, if these were handed out to current MP,s its a good bet that certain bookmaker fat cats would need to sail
away quickly in there big yachts and find a deserted Island to bury these tokens to save them from the scandal
of the public knowing who they have been sleeping with and enjoying certain hospitalities and favors from
leaders, if these were handed out to current MP,s its a good bet that certain bookmaker fat cats would need to sail
away quickly in there big yachts and find a deserted Island to bury these tokens to save them from the scandal
of the public knowing who they have been sleeping with and enjoying certain hospitalities and favors from
UNBIASED post was largely overlooked. I detest the idea of FOBT but people intend on gambling and blowing their lot will find a way to do it.
What I detest and think should be made law and is easily implementable is the use of CREDIT cards for any sort of gaming. DEBIT cards require you to have the funds and although may result in a a temporary cash flow issue hopefully will avoid long term issues.
Bookmakers claim they entirelu support RESPONSIBLE GAMING. Please explain how allowing betting with a credit card is any way responsible.
What I detest and think should be made law and is easily implementable is the use of CREDIT cards for any sort of gaming. DEBIT cards require you to have the funds and although may result in a a temporary cash flow issue hopefully will avoid long term issues.
Bookmakers claim they entirelu support RESPONSIBLE GAMING. Please explain how allowing betting with a credit card is any way responsible.
Does anyone know what percentage of deposits to online firms are made by credit card?
At first read, Swardean's suggestion seems a very good one i.e. prohibiting using credit cards for betting.
There should be no need for anyone to borrow money for a bet, 'only bet with money you can afford to lose' etc.
Bookies sign up to codes on 'responsible gambling' - surely it can't be responsible to let people play with money that they don't yet have?
Of course, someone could go in balls up to their overdraft limit gambling on their debit card, and then the same day use the credit card to buy the week's food, rather than the other way round. But I like this idea.
There should be no need for anyone to borrow money for a bet, 'only bet with money you can afford to lose' etc.
Bookies sign up to codes on 'responsible gambling' - surely it can't be responsible to let people play with money that they don't yet have?
Of course, someone could go in balls up to their overdraft limit gambling on their debit card, and then the same day use the credit card to buy the week's food, rather than the other way round. But I like this idea.
It is only online that you can use credit cards. Shops are not allowed to accept them.
I detest the idea of FOBT but people intend on gambling and blowing their lot will find a way to do it.
unbiased , what you will find though is that most of the fobt players were not big gamblers before the fobts were introduced , but are now doing all the money into these machines . i would also say that most didn't even gamble before fobts were introduced
unbiased , what you will find though is that most of the fobt players were not big gamblers before the fobts were introduced , but are now doing all the money into these machines . i would also say that most didn't even gamble before fobts were introduced
harold-lloyd(world of comedy?
and what did punters bet on before betting shops(14,000 in their prime) were allowed to open?
I can remember when a couple(maximum allowed) of one-armed bandits were introduced into the snooker club I used to play in,and they were occupied nearly all the time.So what did those guys play on before?
I accept that many players didn't gamble before FOBTs,but read above.
People love roulette and fruit machines,I haven't a clue why.For my part they are unskilled,and boring,but they are what the players want.
So much is posted about how quickly you can lose,meanwhile that is the same for ANY form of gambling.
Meanwhile still no hard evidence.Maybe there is,maybe there isn't any,but so far not one has been able to post anything that isn't a theory,rather than empirical evidence.
Stupid questions are regularly asked,like"what do you want to see"?
All I can say is if you have to ask that,then obviously you have nowt of any relevance,otherwise it would have been posted by now.
and what did punters bet on before betting shops(14,000 in their prime) were allowed to open?
I can remember when a couple(maximum allowed) of one-armed bandits were introduced into the snooker club I used to play in,and they were occupied nearly all the time.So what did those guys play on before?
I accept that many players didn't gamble before FOBTs,but read above.
People love roulette and fruit machines,I haven't a clue why.For my part they are unskilled,and boring,but they are what the players want.
So much is posted about how quickly you can lose,meanwhile that is the same for ANY form of gambling.
Meanwhile still no hard evidence.Maybe there is,maybe there isn't any,but so far not one has been able to post anything that isn't a theory,rather than empirical evidence.
Stupid questions are regularly asked,like"what do you want to see"?
All I can say is if you have to ask that,then obviously you have nowt of any relevance,otherwise it would have been posted by now.
the point i was making unbiased is that fobts are creating problem gamblers , more so than there used to be .
yes , people will bet regardless , but fobts are creating more than there would be without them .
you have been in betting shops for years . go in , have a look at the people playing them , did you see them in there pre 2005 ?
ask them if they bet on anything else in the betting shop . 90% will be fobts only
yes , people will bet regardless , but fobts are creating more than there would be without them .
you have been in betting shops for years . go in , have a look at the people playing them , did you see them in there pre 2005 ?
ask them if they bet on anything else in the betting shop . 90% will be fobts only
Fail to see the relevance that machine players don't bet on anything else.Some gamblers never bet on dogs,only horses,and vice versa.
Figures for problem gamblers pre FOBTs are?Again assumptions and personal views,no facts!
Figures for problem gamblers pre FOBTs are?Again assumptions and personal views,no facts!
So much is posted about how quickly you can lose,meanwhile that is the same for ANY form of gambling.
When did a horse race take 20 seconds ?
When was the last time a bookmaker took a £100 bet ?
When did a horse race take 20 seconds ?
When was the last time a bookmaker took a £100 bet ?
The British gambling prevalence survey in 2010 has found problem gambling rose 50% in the previous 3 years,so that is in the lifetime of fobts.Quite a remarkable rise,what percentage of that can be attributed to fobts is admittedly guesswork,but in reality is probably very high.
Harold imo would be correct in saying these are creating problem gamblers.
Harold imo would be correct in saying these are creating problem gamblers.
Yesterday morning 9am doing a tidy up of the shop noticed there was a ticket to print out on one of the fobs, I thought this will only be coppers, looked at the screen £180 I couldn’t believe it.
I rang the guy from security and told him what had happened I told him I thought I knew who’s it was, looked at the CCTV and sure enough it was the guy I thought, security said next time he’s in pay him out.
The security guy couldn’t believe I had actually rang him and he said many others would have just pocketed it, but there is some (although very few) honest betting shop staff about.
Just waiting for him to come back and collect now.
I rang the guy from security and told him what had happened I told him I thought I knew who’s it was, looked at the CCTV and sure enough it was the guy I thought, security said next time he’s in pay him out.
The security guy couldn’t believe I had actually rang him and he said many others would have just pocketed it, but there is some (although very few) honest betting shop staff about.
Just waiting for him to come back and collect now.
"The British gambling prevalence survey in 2010 has found problem gambling rose 50% in the previous 3 years"
And why are you equating this rise only to FOBTs? What about the explosion in online gambling, poker, betting exchanges. Try reading the survey in its entirety and you will see problem gambling is person centric and not product driven.
And why are you equating this rise only to FOBTs? What about the explosion in online gambling, poker, betting exchanges. Try reading the survey in its entirety and you will see problem gambling is person centric and not product driven.
unbiased , what i am saying is that alot of the fobt gamblers would not be gambling if they were not introduced to fobts in the shops by friends or work mates .
you say you have been in betting shops for years , regardless of facts or figures , do you think what i have said is wrong ?
have you not seen a change of any sort ?
you say you have been in betting shops for years , regardless of facts or figures , do you think what i have said is wrong ?
have you not seen a change of any sort ?
And why are you equating this rise only to FOBTs?
Read the post properly, fool.
He said "what percentage of that can be attributed to fobts is admittedly guesswork"
Where does it say the rise was only attributed to FOBTs ?
The more you post, Clive, the more pathetic you seem.
Read the post properly, fool.
He said "what percentage of that can be attributed to fobts is admittedly guesswork"
Where does it say the rise was only attributed to FOBTs ?
The more you post, Clive, the more pathetic you seem.
unbiased
2002 31,000 calls to gamcare
2011/2012 - 54,000 calls to gamcare
2002 31,000 calls to gamcare
2011/2012 - 54,000 calls to gamcare
clive82
Try reading the survey in its entirety and you will see problem gambling is person centric and not product driven.
Could have been taken straight from P 14 of the Racing Post!!!!
Try reading the survey in its entirety and you will see problem gambling is person centric and not product driven.
Could have been taken straight from P 14 of the Racing Post!!!!
harold-lloyd,it doesn't concern me what people choose to bet on,and that is the point.Why all the concern,when there never was that concern prior to FOBTs.It's as if gambling didn't exist then!
Everything in life has changed,and will change again.We have to accept change,or go into a shell and live in the past.
At least your posts show common sense,but I can't be bothered anymore to respond to the utter tosh that has been posted on this topic.ALL ASSUMPTIONS,and many many untruths.
I wait with interest to see real figures showing whether or not there is a problem,until then ta da.
Everything in life has changed,and will change again.We have to accept change,or go into a shell and live in the past.
At least your posts show common sense,but I can't be bothered anymore to respond to the utter tosh that has been posted on this topic.ALL ASSUMPTIONS,and many many untruths.
I wait with interest to see real figures showing whether or not there is a problem,until then ta da.
That is a lot of calls Harold.
A conservative estimate is that 4 people are affected by each problem gambler thus over 1.25 million are affected,a very high percentage of the population indeed.
Just to clarify(again) for you Clive while not blaming fobts for all problem gamblers they certainly have to share some of the blame.
A conservative estimate is that 4 people are affected by each problem gambler thus over 1.25 million are affected,a very high percentage of the population indeed.
Just to clarify(again) for you Clive while not blaming fobts for all problem gamblers they certainly have to share some of the blame.
2002 31,000 calls to gamcare
2011/2012 - 54,000 calls to gamcare
Helps that since 2007 their phone number has been plastered across every gambling premises in the UK.
Also interesting to note that Gamcare's own statistics show 'Betting' accounts for the highest number of problem gambling enquiries received with 32%.
2011/2012 - 54,000 calls to gamcare
Helps that since 2007 their phone number has been plastered across every gambling premises in the UK.
Also interesting to note that Gamcare's own statistics show 'Betting' accounts for the highest number of problem gambling enquiries received with 32%.
WFT - "..but in reality is probably very high."
Read the post properly, it seems the rise is definitely maybe due to FOBTs!
Read the post properly, it seems the rise is definitely maybe due to FOBTs!
A total of 30,247 inbound calls were
made to the HelpLine in 2006.
This was a 33.9% increase on 2005
quite a big increase from 2005 when fobts were introduced to 2006, what would you put this down to clive ?
made to the HelpLine in 2006.
This was a 33.9% increase on 2005
quite a big increase from 2005 when fobts were introduced to 2006, what would you put this down to clive ?
No, Clive you said "And why are you equating this rise only to FOBTs". If you were capable of both writing and understanding the English language, you would know that this means everything, 100%, not "very high" as lapsy pa said.
I used to think you were just an apologist, but now I've realised you're not terribly bright.
You need to listen carefully to what your masters tell you to say, and not interpret that as an instruction to try and use your own words. They'll only get you into trouble.
I used to think you were just an apologist, but now I've realised you're not terribly bright.
You need to listen carefully to what your masters tell you to say, and not interpret that as an instruction to try and use your own words. They'll only get you into trouble.
There was a 25% increase in the total number of inbound calls made to the
HelpLine in 2007, to 37,806
GamCare received almost 51,000 calls by phone and
online, 21% more than in 2007
HelpLine in 2007, to 37,806
GamCare received almost 51,000 calls by phone and
online, 21% more than in 2007
Clive 16.40."Helps that since 2007 their phone number has been plastered across every gambling premises in the UK"
Are any gamcare phone numbers plastered on fobts machines themselves?
Are any gamcare phone numbers plastered on fobts machines themselves?
one shop they should be taken out of is the paddy no power shop opposite wood green tube station.
in a space of 2 hours the staff called police 3 times due to anti social behaviour and gangs of kids coming in and when i mean gangs i am talking of kids aged from 16 to 20 and at least twenty in numbers at a time.
the shop down the road from it said the police are called at least 6 times a day so how the fack is this shop not had its licence revoked.
to think 18 months ago when it had decent staff the shop was meant to have been in the top ten of the whole powder puff estates most profitable
in a space of 2 hours the staff called police 3 times due to anti social behaviour and gangs of kids coming in and when i mean gangs i am talking of kids aged from 16 to 20 and at least twenty in numbers at a time.
the shop down the road from it said the police are called at least 6 times a day so how the fack is this shop not had its licence revoked.
to think 18 months ago when it had decent staff the shop was meant to have been in the top ten of the whole powder puff estates most profitable
Very economical with the truth Clive by stating they are plastered all over the premises when in fact due to the 2007 act each machine is required by law to display gamcares phone number.
Given that the phone number is now so prominent would you think it has anything to do with the meteoric rise that are now seeking help from gamcare?
Given that the phone number is now so prominent would you think it has anything to do with the meteoric rise that are now seeking help from gamcare?
"police are called at least 6 times a day so how the fack is this shop not had its licence revoked."
Or maybe even lock up the kids causing the trouble? Isn't that what businesses pay rates for?
Or maybe even lock up the kids causing the trouble? Isn't that what businesses pay rates for?
Apologist?
Let's play along with your little fantasy and suppose I did work for a bookmaker. What have they got to apologise for?
Not accepting your bets?
I find it hard to believe you've ever been knocked back in your life, you're too simple to threaten margins. Think you just enjoy pretending you're part of the herd. Which is fine by the way, each to their own, and I enjoy your attempts at being patronising, they're sweet in your own special way.
Let's play along with your little fantasy and suppose I did work for a bookmaker. What have they got to apologise for?
Not accepting your bets?
I find it hard to believe you've ever been knocked back in your life, you're too simple to threaten margins. Think you just enjoy pretending you're part of the herd. Which is fine by the way, each to their own, and I enjoy your attempts at being patronising, they're sweet in your own special way.
You're really not the brightest light on the Xmas tree, are you, Clive ?
In the sense used, an apologist is someone who constantly defends his/her position using information, or in your case, disinformation. It isn't someone who apologises, thicko.
I couldn't care less if you work for a bookmaker, or not, and I certainly don't expect, or want, an apology from you.
Too simple to threaten margins ? Can you explain that to every major bookmaker that I've had closed/restricted accounts with ? Something I can prove by the way.
You seem to confuse patronising with insulting. As I said, not too bright.
In the sense used, an apologist is someone who constantly defends his/her position using information, or in your case, disinformation. It isn't someone who apologises, thicko.
I couldn't care less if you work for a bookmaker, or not, and I certainly don't expect, or want, an apology from you.
Too simple to threaten margins ? Can you explain that to every major bookmaker that I've had closed/restricted accounts with ? Something I can prove by the way.
You seem to confuse patronising with insulting. As I said, not too bright.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539