Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.stopthefobts.org/fobts-in-scotland-part-two-bookies-wriggling-exposed/
Show More
FOBTs in Scotland – part two – Bookies wriggling exposed!Print this page
Last week at Holyrood the cover was blown on the “aggressive” lobbying tactics being used by the bookmakers’ “independent watchdog”, the Senet Group – as well as William Hill’s heavy handed targeting of Members of the Scottish Parliament.
At the committee inquiry, held to look at the potential impact of the proposed devolved powers over FOBTs (which form part of the Scotland Bill), the FOBT defence was led by Andrew Lyman of William Hill and John Heaton, representing the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB).
Mr Heaton’s strange apology “on behalf of” the Senet Group – a so-called independent watchdog – for its tobacco style lobbying tactics dominated the Scottish headlines. Not only that, it also revealed the crumbling line of defence propagated by the industry and its key representative at the hearing, Andrew Lyman.
“There is no clear evidence that gaming machines in betting shops are any more addictive than any other gambling product,” came the predictable line from Mr. Lyman. So the evidence contained in the 2010 British Gambling Prevalence survey showing 13.3% of the regular (at least once a month) players were pathological problem gamblers doesn’t count?
Nor does the recent research into FOBTs which showed one in three players of the machines “experience problems” as a result of playing them? How about secondary research on the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence survey showing that when controlling for environment, gambling on FOBTs was the only type of gambling that “remained significantly and positively associated with disordered gambling”? That is to name just a few, but for the bookmakers there is still “no clear evidence”.
Campaign consultant Matt Zarb-Cousin responded to this forcefully saying: “[Mr Lyman] contradicts international evidence, which shows that gambling-related harm is caused by a multitude of factors, including the product, its environment and, to an extent, the individual’s predisposition to such harm”.
Despite one echo in the room from Mr Lyman’s counterpart from the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) – or ScotBet as he hastened to point out – there was unanimous disagreement with the argument put forward by Mr Lyman, with a chorus of agreement that FOBTs are the “crack cocaine of gambling”.
Even the committee convenor was forced to slap Mr Lyman down: “You will stop when I speak because I am in the chair” he said, interrupting a vague explanation of how bookmakers “don’t allow debit cards to be used on machines”, when in reality they do via a remote transaction at the counter. Mr Lyman’s unclear answer obviously irritated the rash that the Senet Group lobbying had left.
The bookmakers’ also argued at the inquiry that “monitoring and supervision are as strong in the betting industry as they are in the casino sector or any other sector”. But this came unstuck when those representing the casino sector pointed out how many people they employ at their premises, how they are at the top of the regulatory pyramid for gambling and how they don’t “have staff who need to be behind cages because it is such a dangerous environment”.
Mr Lyman claimed that staff interactions with angry customers can be deferred to “the following morning”, at which point the convenor noted: “That customer is in the shop last thing at night when there is a lone worker, and then they are in again first thing in the morning— that kind of sums up the difficulty in all of this.”
Measures imposed on FOBTs by the Westminster Government earlier this year came under scrutiny. Matt Zarb-Cousin and Simon Thomas, CEO of the Hippodrome Casino, pointed out to the committee that the requirement to sign up to loyalty cards to access stakes above £50 per spin had been used by the bookmakers as a marketing tool.
The measures established by the Government to “help players stay in control” were derided by the Casino CEO who said: “I am M Mouse and D Duck at two bookmakers… I am bombarded daily with adverts, offers and pressure to spend money. That is not exactly the way to use technology.”
The bookmakers are desperate to convey the impression that they are the experts on gambling related harm, but Mr Lyman did not help his industry with unclear arguments. At the beginning of the inquiry, he claimed: “Any product has the capacity to cause harm to a small number of individuals”, but by the end he conceded that: “There are problem gamblers and those that just spend too much time or money gambling”. In other words, one does not have to be a problem gambler to experience harm when using FOBTs.
A product on which it is possible to stake up to £300 a minute means harm is experienced by more than those categorised as problem gamblers or those deemed “at risk” by Prevalence Surveys. As Mr Thomas noted: “Problem gamblers are at the end of the scale”.
This tacit admission by Mr Lyman that the product has a significant role in inducing and exacerbating gambling related harm is welcome by the Campaign. We hope that William Hill will soon agree to reducing the maximum stake to £2 a spin to reduce the harm this product causes to their customers.
- See more at: https://www.politicshome.com/culture-and-sport/articles/opinion/campaign-fai...
Last week at Holyrood the cover was blown on the “aggressive” lobbying tactics being used by the bookmakers’ “independent watchdog”, the Senet Group – as well as William Hill’s heavy handed targeting of Members of the Scottish Parliament.
At the committee inquiry, held to look at the potential impact of the proposed devolved powers over FOBTs (which form part of the Scotland Bill), the FOBT defence was led by Andrew Lyman of William Hill and John Heaton, representing the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB).
Mr Heaton’s strange apology “on behalf of” the Senet Group – a so-called independent watchdog – for its tobacco style lobbying tactics dominated the Scottish headlines. Not only that, it also revealed the crumbling line of defence propagated by the industry and its key representative at the hearing, Andrew Lyman.
“There is no clear evidence that gaming machines in betting shops are any more addictive than any other gambling product,” came the predictable line from Mr. Lyman. So the evidence contained in the 2010 British Gambling Prevalence survey showing 13.3% of the regular (at least once a month) players were pathological problem gamblers doesn’t count?
Nor does the recent research into FOBTs which showed one in three players of the machines “experience problems” as a result of playing them? How about secondary research on the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence survey showing that when controlling for environment, gambling on FOBTs was the only type of gambling that “remained significantly and positively associated with disordered gambling”? That is to name just a few, but for the bookmakers there is still “no clear evidence”.
Campaign consultant Matt Zarb-Cousin responded to this forcefully saying: “[Mr Lyman] contradicts international evidence, which shows that gambling-related harm is caused by a multitude of factors, including the product, its environment and, to an extent, the individual’s predisposition to such harm”.
Despite one echo in the room from Mr Lyman’s counterpart from the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) – or ScotBet as he hastened to point out – there was unanimous disagreement with the argument put forward by Mr Lyman, with a chorus of agreement that FOBTs are the “crack cocaine of gambling”.
Even the committee convenor was forced to slap Mr Lyman down: “You will stop when I speak because I am in the chair” he said, interrupting a vague explanation of how bookmakers “don’t allow debit cards to be used on machines”, when in reality they do via a remote transaction at the counter. Mr Lyman’s unclear answer obviously irritated the rash that the Senet Group lobbying had left.
The bookmakers’ also argued at the inquiry that “monitoring and supervision are as strong in the betting industry as they are in the casino sector or any other sector”. But this came unstuck when those representing the casino sector pointed out how many people they employ at their premises, how they are at the top of the regulatory pyramid for gambling and how they don’t “have staff who need to be behind cages because it is such a dangerous environment”.
Mr Lyman claimed that staff interactions with angry customers can be deferred to “the following morning”, at which point the convenor noted: “That customer is in the shop last thing at night when there is a lone worker, and then they are in again first thing in the morning— that kind of sums up the difficulty in all of this.”
Measures imposed on FOBTs by the Westminster Government earlier this year came under scrutiny. Matt Zarb-Cousin and Simon Thomas, CEO of the Hippodrome Casino, pointed out to the committee that the requirement to sign up to loyalty cards to access stakes above £50 per spin had been used by the bookmakers as a marketing tool.
The measures established by the Government to “help players stay in control” were derided by the Casino CEO who said: “I am M Mouse and D Duck at two bookmakers… I am bombarded daily with adverts, offers and pressure to spend money. That is not exactly the way to use technology.”
The bookmakers are desperate to convey the impression that they are the experts on gambling related harm, but Mr Lyman did not help his industry with unclear arguments. At the beginning of the inquiry, he claimed: “Any product has the capacity to cause harm to a small number of individuals”, but by the end he conceded that: “There are problem gamblers and those that just spend too much time or money gambling”. In other words, one does not have to be a problem gambler to experience harm when using FOBTs.
A product on which it is possible to stake up to £300 a minute means harm is experienced by more than those categorised as problem gamblers or those deemed “at risk” by Prevalence Surveys. As Mr Thomas noted: “Problem gamblers are at the end of the scale”.
This tacit admission by Mr Lyman that the product has a significant role in inducing and exacerbating gambling related harm is welcome by the Campaign. We hope that William Hill will soon agree to reducing the maximum stake to £2 a spin to reduce the harm this product causes to their customers.
- See more at: https://www.politicshome.com/culture-and-sport/articles/opinion/campaign-fai...
Looks like 'the end is nigh' for high stakes in Scotland.
Pity they can't ban them altogether and force bookmakers into becoming bookmakers again.
They'll just send a Racing Post glove puppet like Mottershed to a branch of William Hill in Scotland to write an Alistair Down style 'article' about how harmless and enjoyable it is to lose money playing FOBTs, imo...
Mr Lyman claimed that staff interactions with angry customers can be deferred to “the following morning”, at which point the convenor noted: “That customer is in the shop last thing at night when there is a lone worker, and then they are in again first thing in the morning— that kind of sums up the difficulty in all of this.”
Oops--own goal.
I don't think the Scots are allowed to make their own FOBTs laws.
Oops--own goal.
I don't think the Scots are allowed to make their own FOBTs laws.
Not sure that the sweaties should be entrusted with any law...
However if they can ban the FOBTs then they may even gain my admiration...
However if they can ban the FOBTs then they may even gain my admiration...
They won't be banned, but limiting the stakes will be a step in the right direction.
What the off course bookmakers would do if FOBTs were banned or even stakes heavily reduced is an interesting and amusing diversion. They have turned many off racing and somehow I don't see them turning to that medium for their "fix". Football - 3 runner race with thin margins. Hmm.
Interesting
Interesting
At a pinch if they were limited there would have different approach to their former core product...
If the possibility that the FOBTs could go ever looked likely, the threat that there would have to be a reintroduction of a betting tax 'to save the jobs of 1000's of betting shop staff' will be media placed by the bookmaker PR frauds, imo, with the gutless press room flunkies dancing pirouettes to comply with the misdirection...
Not sure that I could improve on that but will have a pop later..
Love millhouse but what does imo mean..
Love millhouse but what does imo mean..
Homefortea imo is 'in my opinion', imho is 'in my humble opinion' - helps avoid getting sued...
To be fair, FOBTs are hardly the only gambling medium where "it is possible to stake up to £300 a minute".
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if there were one or two people on here who lost even more than that on the sprint which just finished at Dundalk.
There's a million reasons to hate FOBTs and the betting shop owners and shareholder who profit from them. But stake size is a bad argument imo.
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if there were one or two people on here who lost even more than that on the sprint which just finished at Dundalk.
There's a million reasons to hate FOBTs and the betting shop owners and shareholder who profit from them. But stake size is a bad argument imo.
Posters keep banging on about bookmakers having to think again about restrictions on horseracing bets if the FOBT stakes were reduced,but it is an entirely separate issue.Things have changed greatly over the last decade in the betting world,and all accounts are heavily scrutinised.There are firms that don't have shops,so no machines,but still restrict when things aren't favourable,so to keep saying if stakes on machines were greatly reduced,then restrictions would be lifted doesn't make any sense.
I accept that there are many MPs,mostly Labour,that want to see a change,but meanwhile the profits tax is a whopping 25%,and not easy to tamper with by reducing stakes.
I accept that there are many MPs,mostly Labour,that want to see a change,but meanwhile the profits tax is a whopping 25%,and not easy to tamper with by reducing stakes.
Point taken - but if the cheating illegal alleged "bookmakers" were not allowed to sweep up the benefits of the poor and feckless then perhaps they would have to try a little bit better to take the money off those that had a brain...
Just a thought...
Just a thought...
mate told me the magic sign are training staff on the old 3 cups and a ball routine, just in case the FOBT's get the chop. stakes to be limited to £300 a minute. because they care.
Gretna Green will be busy when Scotland changes the law
King of Dubai
Date Joined: 27 May 07
Blogger: King of Dubai's blog
Add contact | Send message
27 Nov 15 21:18
How would they make more money from taking big bets from winning punters?
They would gave to make a book, and if you think they only close or restrict 'winning punters' you are sadly mistaken. How do they know you are going to be a winning punter longterm after 3 win singles? I understand they don't want ew thieves etc but they seem to close any account after a few bets because you have beat sp a couple of times. It's a bad situation
Date Joined: 27 May 07
Blogger: King of Dubai's blog
Add contact | Send message
27 Nov 15 21:18
How would they make more money from taking big bets from winning punters?
They would gave to make a book, and if you think they only close or restrict 'winning punters' you are sadly mistaken. How do they know you are going to be a winning punter longterm after 3 win singles? I understand they don't want ew thieves etc but they seem to close any account after a few bets because you have beat sp a couple of times. It's a bad situation
Magic Daps, I would suspect they will be monitoring the situation in Australia re. restriction very closely, as it's a real world demo of what would happen if the had to start taking bets again.
King Of Dubai, my only contribution to the debate is in here - you..?
King Of Dubai, my only contribution to the debate is in here - you..?
unbiased 27 Nov 15 21:03
......There are firms that don't have shops,so no machines,but still restrict when things aren't favourable,so to keep saying if stakes on machines were greatly reduced,then restrictions would be lifted doesn't make any sense.
It does if those with machines were curbed and so had to go back to being more like bookmakers and started taking proper bets again, which will leave those firms without shops abandoned by online punters if they still tried to restrict punters, when their customers now have a realistic opportunity to get on elsewhere.
The main one bookmakers restricts is because most, if not all of their rivals do, so it's basically a cartel type situation yet would only take one or two to break ranks and draw customers away from the rest, before the rest would have to react to that. Those one or two aren't likely to do so by choice though and only if their hand is forced.
......There are firms that don't have shops,so no machines,but still restrict when things aren't favourable,so to keep saying if stakes on machines were greatly reduced,then restrictions would be lifted doesn't make any sense.
It does if those with machines were curbed and so had to go back to being more like bookmakers and started taking proper bets again, which will leave those firms without shops abandoned by online punters if they still tried to restrict punters, when their customers now have a realistic opportunity to get on elsewhere.
The main one bookmakers restricts is because most, if not all of their rivals do, so it's basically a cartel type situation yet would only take one or two to break ranks and draw customers away from the rest, before the rest would have to react to that. Those one or two aren't likely to do so by choice though and only if their hand is forced.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539