Trust me there's no loss to the punter here. If the punter had to go to a betting shop for social interaction they've already lost. Ban the whole industry and spend the money on social centres.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Government do something right for a change regarding FOBTs.
- Thread starter Psychobilly freakout
- Start date
Trust me there's no loss to the punter here. If the punter had to go to a betting shop for social interaction they've already lost. Ban the whole industry and spend the money on social centres.
Disagree. If a shop is only making money because of the existence of FOBTs then it probably ought not to be a going concern. It is likely to be the clustered ones that go - the ones talked about earlier in this thread. It may hoover up a few of the non-town centre shops but obviously if that brings the number of non-town centre shops to the number before FOBTs were even a thing, then I don't see the problem.
Nothing. But where is the evidence that impulsive, compulsive shop FOBT gamblers will do this? If they do, then that will be the next thing to clamp down on, but there is little point in that until it becomes a proven problem.
Yes you were, you were saying SSBTs will simply replace FOBTs. That may be true, but seeing as they are very very different for the reasons I highlighted, so what?
It is a well deserved kick in the knackers, certainly. But nobody in their right mind is calling this a silver bullet to cure problem gambling - but it will certainly help.
Billy Seagull
Bookie Basher
- Jul 5, 2003
- 1,432
Yeah, that would be handy. Just yesterday I was knocked back in a Hills on a bet to win just £450, was allowed half the steak I wanted
Obviously, I was welcome to play the machines all day
Having gone through a large number of online accounts in the last few years I have absolutely no sympathy with the bookies who have a very short term thinking business model based on the rancid machines. Very ironic that Hills have sent a whining letter to the Prime Minister about it costing them job losses etc etc when all they care about is their profits and not a jot about the losers that prop them up. Strange they they aren't implementing it until next year, should be done overnight.
Arthur
Well-known member
We'll see.
Again we'll see.
No I wasn't. I was saying SSBTs will replace retail staff. FOBTs aren't going anywhere even with todays announcement.
Once again we'll see.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
- Thread starter
- #25
As an ex FOBT idiot who lost a fair chunk of my disposable income roughly 10k, I used to get paid cash after each job.
I only started because I was working with another fitter who would pop into the bookies and place bets all day long and I would get bored so played these machines while I waited and it progressed from there.
I can only speak from my experience, but to help myself I changed jobs to estimating rather than fitting so less time out on the road, and got my wages paid into my wifes account, she would then pop some spending money into my account and check my account every week. It has been 8 years now and I still get the urge to do it occasionally and have to be honest blown £200 a few years back in about 10minutes (that actually proved to me its a mugs game, thank go I did not win)
I show my wife my account every month now even though she no longer asks, but anything odd like a betting app or bill shows up on a tablet or phone is going to cause a lot problems and ultimately that is a good thing and deters people.
Yeah, that would be handy. Just yesterday I was knocked back in a Hills on a bet to win just £450, was allowed half the steak I wanted
Stupid question alert - and I'm not a gambler. I get them refusing a high stake - say £1m at 10/1 but what justification do they have for rejecting a bet that would only win £450 ?
All these "we'll see"s. Well obviously. But clearly something needed to be done because these things make it all too easy for problem gamblers to ruin their lives. These restrictions are not a magic bullet but they can't really do much harm.
You started off by saying the real loser is the punter, but that's not really true. We have simply changed from a situation where you can be expected to lose your £500 in five minutes with an EV of 95% by punting high stakes, to a situation where it would now take hours to do that, even if the EV is decreased to 90%.
If that is what you were saying, then I don't understand the relevance of you even mentioning them with respect to FOBTs. It's no more relevant to the pros and cons of restricting FOBT stakes than the fact that Sainsburys and Tescos now offer self service counters at a cost of jobs. Automation is just modern life.
This is slightly O/T ...
I'm not a regular gambler myself (and I didn't even have my annual bet on the National this year), but I do have experience of what gambling addiction can do to people, and their families, so anything that limits and controls it gets my vote. However the one thing about the gaming industry that really pisses me off is that "When the fun stops, stop" message they gabble out at the end of the adverts. Is that their idea of social responsibility? It really isn't that easy to stop, you may as well tell people in a hostage situation that when they get fed up with the boredom and the fear of being held captive they can just go home.
I'm not a regular gambler myself (and I didn't even have my annual bet on the National this year), but I do have experience of what gambling addiction can do to people, and their families, so anything that limits and controls it gets my vote. However the one thing about the gaming industry that really pisses me off is that "When the fun stops, stop" message they gabble out at the end of the adverts. Is that their idea of social responsibility? It really isn't that easy to stop, you may as well tell people in a hostage situation that when they get fed up with the boredom and the fear of being held captive they can just go home.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,577
They were limited in the number of fixed odds machines that they could have in each shop, and the FOBTs were so lucrative that they just opened more shops to have more of them in. (Edit - realise several other s have made this point......)
I have a colleague who was a member of the Government's gambling commission, and is now a member of a separate (but related) body on responsible gambling. This issue has been one of their major concerns, if not the major concern for a long time.
Billy Seagull
Bookie Basher
- Jul 5, 2003
- 1,432
Because they don't like someone winning from them. They have to ring a Permission To Lay" hotline for all bets over £100 in the shop I have access to. Genreally they lay everything I want but sometimes they knock me back as they are risk averse. It's embarrassing for the shop staff.
Winners not required, machine backers welcome all day long.
Arthur
Well-known member
But you are only talking about problem gamblers as if they are the only people that use these machines. The reality is they are the small minority. What about those that do it because they enjoy it? I only ever use the things to kill a bit of time when I'm waiting for a train or similar. Of course I will lose out. I now don't see the point of playing blackjack on them to win £2 a hand and if I were to play anything else now the chances of me winning will be an awful lot less than they were.
Go back and read my original post. The relevance is that jobs will be lost on the high street because of SSBTs eventually and I don't agree with the bookmakers banging the drum that these new laws will be the cause of that job loss. It'll just hurry that process along.
I totally agree. Shame other industries such as the railway don't see it that way.
Arthur
Well-known member
Well you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. As with any addiction you've got to want to help yourself. Surely advertising programs to help people is a good thing especially when its directly to the target audience.
I'm sure the last thing the tobacco industry is to want you to quit but they still have a quit helpline on the packet don't they?
You might indeed lose out, although that assumes expected value actually decreases. It might not of course, competition might still drive it upwards. Personally I'd like to see it becoming a legal requirement for the EV to be clearly displayed for 5 seconds before a game starts. That would then give the punter a choice.
Aside from that, I don't really have much sympathy for the rest of your reasoning because of the proven damage it does to the lives of problem gamblers. If you have a slightly lower EV or low stakes as a casual gambler, well meh. Your choice is to not use them. Perhaps put a bet on instead?
Apologies, I misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting SSBTs will fill the FOBT void, when actually you are simply pointing out that SSBTs will be the cause of job losses rather than this stake reduction on FOBTs.
I like the (sports betting) machines. If you want to place an acca or similar, it is handy to see the odds worked out for you as you add (and delete) matches from your list. Much better than scribbling on a long-list sheet, having to do the sums yourself, having to start again if you change your mind about one game, and then standing in a queue behind three old blokes putting 40p e/w on a dog race (and expecting to push in front of you because it's 'about to go'), only for the machine to reject your sheet because one of your pen marks went 2mm outside the little box.
Is there a 'quit' programme? I've never heard it advertised. After all the talk about akkers (sp), markets, bet boosting, etc, and after the glossy film showing people using the apps (and instructing them on how to do it), there is about two seconds of somebody gabbling about stopping. It's like all those American adverts for medical products where they have to tell you of all the potential side effects. At no time have I ever heard anybody say that there is a programme for quitting. At least on fag packets you can see number of the helpline.
At least your post confirms my view: We've done our bit, we've told the suckers to stop. Not our fault if they doing it is it? *shrug*
Arthur
Well-known member
[yt]sZ6oewHaIl8[/yt]
What more would like the industry to do? How do you think these programs are funded? As I say damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with them in that respect - except for the incredibly shit muglet odds of course.
DumLum
Well-known member
Really?
So what if a coffee shop makes most of it's money from coffee?
I don't feel sorry for the bookmakers. I do feel for the staff that will lose their jobs.
That doesn't really work as an analogy because a) betting shops will still make most of their money from betting with or without FOBTs and b) coffee shops don't sell any single product with the addictive capabilities crack cocaine (and potential to destroy lives of the vulnerable) which could just as easily be removed.
Well not so much 'damned if they do' as they don't really do anything. They could run some adverts that tell you about the 'quit' programme with the same intensity that they promote their products. They could display the 'quit' link in a prominent position in their apps and on their sites, the same way that anti-smoking propaganda dominates a cigarette box. (I don't use them so maybe they do that already, in which case fair play. I suspect though that it's just stuck away in the footers somewhere). Given the fact that the gaming industry, unlike the tobacco industry, is allowed to advertise to encourage new addicts it's the least they could do.
As I said, to me as an outsider the attitude seems to be that the fig leaf of muttering "whenthefunstopsstop" is sufficient to be seen as 'doing something'. I disagree, but there you go.