There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
When punters hear FOBT's pay out 97% on average per spin many think it's nonsense, but that 97% return figure is absolutely correct - in fact on the latest figures it's actually a touch higher than that!
Below is a link to the recorded figures for April 2011 to March 2012 showing a total profit of £1.46 billion from all FOBT's from £40 billion staked. That shows a 2.74% profit margin therefore a standard return of 97.26%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/feb/11/cost-of-gambling-britain-today-data?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
However, this is by no means the full story. The damage to stakes is not done in the profit margin but rather in the rapid and repetitive play which also ensures rapid stake degradation (i.e. £100 x 97%, £97 x 97%, £94.09 x 97% etc etc). Therefore after just 30 spins of a £100 stake (10-15 mins play) the average loss will be a whopping 60%!
The machines are also designed to come up with various 'near miss' scenarios for the credulous and to press the right neurological buttons for the weak. This addictive cocktail is so powerful that IN REALITY the most common overall 'session' result is a 100% loss - most players simply play until bust.
That '97% return' is totally correct - but it's also completely irrelevant in a real-world situation.
Below is a link to the recorded figures for April 2011 to March 2012 showing a total profit of £1.46 billion from all FOBT's from £40 billion staked. That shows a 2.74% profit margin therefore a standard return of 97.26%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/feb/11/cost-of-gambling-britain-today-data?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
However, this is by no means the full story. The damage to stakes is not done in the profit margin but rather in the rapid and repetitive play which also ensures rapid stake degradation (i.e. £100 x 97%, £97 x 97%, £94.09 x 97% etc etc). Therefore after just 30 spins of a £100 stake (10-15 mins play) the average loss will be a whopping 60%!
The machines are also designed to come up with various 'near miss' scenarios for the credulous and to press the right neurological buttons for the weak. This addictive cocktail is so powerful that IN REALITY the most common overall 'session' result is a 100% loss - most players simply play until bust.
That '97% return' is totally correct - but it's also completely irrelevant in a real-world situation.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 82
|
By:
Clive92 will be along shortly, hang on.
|
|
By:
82
 |
|
By:
betlarge, you are spot on they get the effing lot very quickly, far worse than
cutting the pot at poker, disgraceful that the government allow this to happen, the least the government should do is to tax these monstrous machines massively so that in theory a lump of the money lost by addicts returns to the public purse. |
|
By:
The point they always miss is that with Sports betting the overround may be higher eg 90% payout but with good judgment & analysis you can push this up to 100% and even above.
So what is better a guaranteed 97% payout on FOBT's or a lower average % payout with sports betting but with the opportunity to raise it through skill/judgment? I know I would prefer to live in a society where the latter is tolerated and the former banned. 'If you can't win you shouldn't be able to lose' |
|
By:
chelsea what r u on about? have you been on the beer?
|
|
By:
Hang on miprix, all will be revealed.
|
|
By:
chelsea if you really mean it I will give you my skype address, perhaps I
could be given a private preview as to what is to be revealed, could be exciting.  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
C'mon Clive auld son, shoot the OP down in flames (if you can)
|
|
By:
chelsea, please post who Clive is, a government spokesperson?
|
|
By:
Clive is variably David Williams, Philip Davies, an LBO shop manager, Dirk Vennix, some bloke from SIS and most often then not any of the above with 'rancid' preceding it.
'Near miss' scenarios on FOBTs are illegal. I'd be surprised given the scrutiny the machines are under that nobody has been able to prove that the bookies, machine developers, manufacturers and suppliers are committing a crime on such an epic scale. It would also make all the hundreds of millions of pounds profit derived from the machines the proceeds of crime and therefore recoverable. Naturally the chap making this claim will have the evidence to back it up? |
|
By:
More a bookies rep. Though he will deny it.
|
|
By:
Is your avatar Malcolm Rifkind clive ?
|
|
By:
Surprised you don't recognise the avatar.
I get bored of saying it but I don't work for a bookies. Just don't believe it is for others to dictate to me what I can spend my money on. I'd have the same view if you tried to ban Big Macs. |
|
By:
I am confused, FOBTs as most people realise are a legalised racket which should not be
allowed to fleece certain segments of the public as they do, that they are allowed to go on their merry way without strict and draconian legislation is beyond me. Any one imo who defends these machines can only have a financial interest in them being allowed to carry on. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
The machines in their current format are governed by legislation and regulations set down in 2007 which prohibit the use of 'near miss' scenarios. Research conducted into FOBTs pre 2007 (when they were effectively regulated by gentleman's agreement between ABB and Gaming Board) is not relevant to the machines available today.
If operators are ignoring the regulations and have managed to get that past the independent test labs, then they are taking a huge risk of criminal charges. Given the consequences on a PLCs reputation, should such a huge criminal conspiracy be uncovered I doubt they are doing this. Also the amount of people that would need to be involved in the conspiracy would suggest somebody would have blown the whistle by now if it was true. |
|
By:
clive you seem to know an awful lot about these machines,assuming your facts are right,which of course I'm sure they are. If you don't work for a bookie are you in some way connected with the manufacture/sale of these machines. Sorry about my ignorance of your avatar.
|
|
By:
Clive , have you never forgiven your parents for giving you that name and have been angry ever since ???? Suppose you get great pleasure in other people playing these "casino" machines.
|
|
By:
salmon 1-100 you are right.
|
|
By:
After an hour of play an initial stake of £100 will return less than £1 thus by forcing gamblers to play many times with
high stakes in a format that is addictive type play the Fixed odds machine creates great profits when deployed on the general public. |
|
By:
The answer by the LBO to exchanges fair play attractiveness is to create a totally unfair system to take the publics money.
|
|
By:
Ther only answer to prevent the damage done by these machines is to reduce the cash limit amount that can be staked and allow longer cooling off time between spins.
|
|
By:
You cant play poker stakes higher than a few quid unless its in a casino so why have bookmakers got exclusive rights
to allow £100 stakes on what are effectivly addictive fruit machines? |
|
By:
I understand & respect Clive82's opinions regarding free choice etc.
It's ultimately down to what our society feels is a fair cost for having this free choice. Let the statistics be measured properly (ie not by the industry) on how much of the money going in these machines is due to problem/compulsive gamblers then take things from there. Regarding your point on Big Mac's Clive, if it could be proved that more than 1% of Big Mac consumers were actually addicted to the product then IMO the government should step in to legislate either to remove the addictive ingredient or take the product off the shelves. If it is the case that more than 1% of machine players are addicted then IMO the government should step in. Some people may say that 1% is nothing & it still shouldn't be legislated against. However there does come a cut off point where action has to be taken |
|
By:
bookies arent robbing people at all (i dont work for any of them) ,you have a choice to play them or not,i wish people would stop going on about them,they are here to stay whether you like it or not
|
|
By:
It needs realistic regulation.
|
|
By:
you have to wonder how someone who claims not to work in or for the industry is as well informed on betting & gaming legislation & regulation as our man clive and you have to wonder even more at the amount of time he devotes to defending the unethical practices of said industry, that he does not work in or for.
i think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he is not entirely truthful (i was going to put full of sh1t but decided that was too crude) |
|
By:
Harry in selecting a username perhaps your imagination didn't stretch beyond your birth certificate, mine did.
I'll repeat again, I don't work in the industry. Nothing to be ashamed of if I did, so I would freely admit it. If you oppose prohibition of alcohol does it mean you work for Carlsberg? |
|
By:
"..well informed on betting & gaming legislation & regulation"
Everything is relative! |
|
By:
A bookmaker wont allow punters to throw wads of money on horses in the event that the punter is a winner and
it effects the profits, the punter also should have protection from losing money they cant afford to lose so controlling stakes on fixed betting terminals make sense and this will be legislated, not just remours! |
|
By:
these machines help people stay in work otherwise bookies would be closing down everywhere and the tax the govermeant gets back stops youre income tax going up so stop moaning
|
|
By:
We're you bullied at school ?
|
|
By:
jajabink, your mud slinging and not the real deal
 |
|
By:
these machines are nothing more than fun,you cant win long term on them,if certain people choose to stick their life savings in so be it
|
|
By:
Stakes on FOBTSs are regulated unlike on Betfair.
In fact as there has been no inflationary increase since 2007, stake and prize levels have actually been cut in real terms. |
|
By:
for someone that doesn't work in the industry, you sure know your FOBTs Clive !
|
|
By:
Sorry if someone's beat me to it but clive's photo is cyril Stein.
|
|
By:
Clive82, the current regulations on stake sizes and prize levels are totally inadequate to protect
ordinary citizens in the form of the general public from losing large amounts of money very quickly and these siad persons not knowing the great finacial risk involved in playing them. This will become a matter for further regualtion in the near future and if you would like to place a bet on it, feel free.... |