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.

I refer back to my comments about your somewhat limited statistical understanding.

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 .

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

"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.

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 ?

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!!!!

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.

WFT - "..but in reality is probably very high."

Read the post properly, it seems the rise is definitely maybe due to FOBTs!

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.

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?

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?