- This topic has 101 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
if they were restricted banned,the problem for bookmakers would be,re-employing decent odds compilers and getting over the fact they may have to lay some decent bets to make a profit
yeats, I understand your moral objections to FOBTs. Your reasoning around the economics of machines V horse racing is utterly wrong.
The cost of media rights (controlled by racetracks) and the level of knowledge and skill among punters has combined to make racing a product that is close to untenable from a business viewpoint, especially in shops with the attendant costs – rates, rent, staff etc. It’s not a choice for bookmakers between the ‘risk’ of taking bets on racing and encouraging FOBT use. Why would anyone sell a product on which they make no money or little money, and in many cases lose money?
FOBTs are keeping many shops open. Believe me, I’ve seen the figures. No FOBTs means losing about half the High St shops. If that happens racecourses start closing and racing’s demise comes closer. If you have no objection to that, then that’s fine. But don’t carry on in the belief that once FOBTs are gone, bookies will happily start selling racing again. That won’t happen.
I agree getting rid of FOBTs will result in bookmakers closing shops. But I’m not convinced it will make much difference to racing. I hardly see anyone betting on horses in the shops so I would expect the impact on racing to be minimal. The impression I get is that bookmakers use racing as a respectable smokescreen to cover up the fact that FOBTs make nearly all the profit.
Every closed shop is a loss of media rights money and a piece of levy money. 3,000 closed shops would cause serious damage to racing’s income, affecting prize money, the viability of racetracks, ownership and therefore the future of those employed in the industry. Racing as we know it would not survive unless online businesses were somehow forced to pay for a racing right irrespective of the territory in which the online site was based.
What happens to the players if FOBTs are banned? Do they just get their fix elsewhere such as Online gaming? If so then this doesn’t solve the problem, it just shifts it.
I’ve no objections to shops closing, in fact I think they should do where they have only opened to facilitate Fobt’s.
Horse racing should not earn a living on the back of Fobt’s, it should do it on it’s own merit. Horse racing chose the bookmaker path rather a Tote monopoly and has been paying the penalty ever since.
The Fobt’s should be limited to what bookmakers are prepared to take in bets on horse racing, 2 quid is more than sufficient.Shops don’t need to close for the levy to be affected: all that has to happen is for one of the more publicity-seeking high street bookmakers to stop showing racing (citing the fact that it’s “uneconomic” and “not what the modern customer wants”) and the rest will soon follow.
It is always the gambler’s fault, that does not mean we shouldn’t help them. It seems to me the biggest problem is the stake amount someone can put on in one go.
With alcohol there are rules on the amount one can consume in one go.
Limit FOBT stakes to around £10 a hit/pull/push (or whatever it is) and see if that improves the situation.
imo Just because society has a stupid attitude to alcohol is no reason to not set sensible rules for FOBT’s.
Value Is EverythingMust admit I was down the bookies earlier and as usual I was surprised at how many mugs were playing these pointless contraptions.
Have never touched them and never will. The attraction of them I cannot understand. At least if you bet on sports or horseracing you can at least delude yourself that you might have a big win somewhere. How can you possibly win against a machine programmed to only pay out a certain amount?
With alcohol there are rules on the amount one can consume in one go.
There’s one crucial difference, Ginge: if the manager of your local pub thinks that you’ve had too much to drink, he can refuse to serve you. The manager of the local bookies cannot refuse to serve you if he thinks you’ve lost too much; all he can do is advise you, which usually ends in a mouthful of expletives from the losing gambler.
Can’t the manager ban someone if thinking the a punter’s health is suffering?
Thought I saw that in the rules and regs.Value Is EverythingMust admit that I’ve never heard of that one, and my ex was a betting shop manager for six years. You can bar someone for violent and/or abusive behaviour but not for losing too much money. Perhaps the rules have changed since she left the industry.
What’s the campaign/saying the bookies need to give in every advert? Something like, “if it’s not fun, stop”. Why say that if not acting on it?
Value Is EverythingIn theory a shop manager can refuse anyone’s business on any product. But if the point is trying to encourage a player to seek help through counselling and the formalities of self-exclusion then just barring the customer makes no sense. In doing that staff are only, as the Yanks say, kicking the can down the road for someone else to pick up.
In theory a shop manager can refuse anyone’s business on any product.
In theory, you’re correct.
However, the rules apparently don’t apply to the betting industry. My ex was threatened with rape, so obviously barred the customer. Her district manager reinstated the customer because “he’s a big spender” and the rape threat was, apparently, an empty one.
That’s why she left.
In theory a shop manager can refuse anyone’s business on any product.
In theory, you’re correct.
However, the rules apparently don’t apply to the betting industry. My ex was threatened with rape, so obviously barred the customer. Her district manager reinstated the customer because “he’s a big spender” and the rape threat was, apparently, an empty one.
That’s why she left.
How long ago was this Gladiateur?
If that happened now I think your wife could take the bookmaker to court.Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.