- This topic has 89 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
despite living in a genuine information age, society as a whole gets dumber by the day, and is largely happy to dwell there from what I can make out.
On a broader point I wonder how much "education" really goes on at school anyway. Training certainly, but you can train an animal.
x-factor rules
Cynicism in one so relatively young CR; it’s not healthy
though in this relatively old skeptic your words do strike a chordIf one is foolhardy enough to judge society from what one reads in the papers and watches on TV then one would come to the inescapable conclusion that a pervading fog of fear and resentment has smothered intellectualism and education, with the dreadful words ‘geek’ and ‘anorak’ perjoratively hurled willy-nilly at anyone who can recite the times-tables but can’t recite the winners of X-Factor
Purely in the name of research you understand
I’ve grinned and borne the burden of watching a bit of X-Factor, Big Brother and their ilk and have to say that ‘in real life’ I haven’t met anyone who resembles the contestants on these programmes. They are, for want of a better term ‘freak shows’ populated by exhibitionists with ‘issues’ and therefore not representative of the populace at large. Squalid voyeurism attracts and as that keen obsever of the seedier side of society, HL Mencken, said back in the 1930s "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the [American] public" Times haven’t changed then?But if one chooses to be the optimist and search for what’s good in society today (which always takes more effort than searching for the bad, which is obvious and easily definable) one could point to the instances of more youngsters now studying the pure sciences (Biology Chemistry Physics Mathematics) at university after a long period of decline, thanks in part to the influence of the rather good and not dumbed down prgrammes fronted by Brian Cox and Jim Al-Kalili on the much-maligned goggler, and the resurgence in reading (novels in particular) thanks to the invention of Kindle and the like
As for school education, I think the experiment geared towards ‘getting 50% (or whatever) of pupils into university’ utilising cinderella and ‘training’ (vocational) subjects has been exposed for what many thought it was: a mistake. Make everyone study and get a thorough grounding of the traditional 3Rs etc until 16, then let those who prefer exercising their brains go on to further academic education and let those who prefer exeercising their hands go into further vocational education in the guise of apprenticeships
Which is hardly a revolutionary idea: it worked, adequately if not perfectly, for decades didn’t it?
Cynics die scowling, embittered
Skeptics die smiling, vindicatedand the resurgence in reading (novels in particular) thanks to the invention of Kindle and the like
Absolute game changer. I’ve just read
50 Shades Of Grey
and I’ve never felt so educated.
If somewhat bemused.
Mike
The argument about the 50%-University is a seperate discussion and a much bigger crime against society, education and the economy in my opinion.
Still think things are being ramped and over complicated with FOBTs though, at the end of the day a fool and money have always been parted and gamblers lose – just that today’s society can make things look different.
Vulnerable victims they’re not, if an adult chooses to gamble and lose they must take full responsibility for that, no blame should be attached elsewhere at all.
"she was asking for it, look at that skirt, it’s not his fault, he’s a vulnerable victim"
I know it seems ridiculous to suggest bookies would rig machines, but if they could get away with it and satisfy legislation, would it not be tempting?
Where is the clear information in the public domain on how these machines work?
There must be one software engineer somewhere who can tell us? (seems not). Why such secrecy?
The FOBT’s used to pick the same number remotely when a punter pressed the start (spin) button – now each machine requests it’s number individually. So, in theory, each machine could look at each individual spin and determine what number comes up….but, of course, that would be crooked.
For the erudite scientists amongst us that poo poo the claims of skullduggery with these machines I would advise playing them and then going to a real casino.
On the FOBT you often get your number up immediately after you removed your chips from that number. The amount of near misses (heart stoppers on fruit machines) is very high. Hardly anyone seems to win when I’ve been in the bookies. You also get reverse numbers 13/31 12/21 23/32 which could be construed as trying to give players a sense of knowing what is coming next.
The above hardly happens in the real casino from my many visits there. Sure, some peeps get shafted, but there are plenty of people winning and TRULY random sequences. I happily will lose there knowing it is down to luck. And, strangely enough, it seems easier not to be totally shafted there then it does on the bookie roulette. I accept that the spins are not as fast and furious in a real casino.
Is it really that far-fetched to think that FOBTs are programmed with complex psychology to make them more addictive to players – whilst still meeting their percentage (the naturally random 97.3)?
You raise an interesting point Getzippy regarding the innate randomness of numbers generated by automatic, physical means e.g roulette wheel which can only be ‘loaded’ and thus rendered non-random using rather crude and well known methods, versus the randomness of numbers generated by programmed, virtual software, which from extension of the word ‘programmed’ may not be innate, and furthermore possibly easily ‘loaded’ using clever and novel methods, as you suggest may be the case. Though I must say I very much doubt bookmakers do load their FOBTs as to do so would strike me as blatant fraud regardless of eventually meeting the advertised 97% payback
Anyway and at a slight tangent, can virtual-world non-physically generated numbers be guaranteed to be as truly random as real-world physically generated numbers?
Virtual-world non-physically generated numbers can’t be random, however by choosing based on a physical-world event they can give random results. So the way a Las Vegas slot machine chooses an outcome is to cycle through thousands of numbers per second and use the one at the precise time the player hits the play button. He player has no way of knowing what numbers are cycling, and even if they did could not time their play to the precise split-second to "choose" a number.
I say again, the FOBT are just like fruit machines; the number they land on is simply a way of saying win or lose. The numbers do not have to be random, only the payout percentage is regulated, so they are free to use whatever psychological techniques the manufacturer chooses. Hence "Fixed Odds".
I respect the views of those who say grown-ups should be able to make their own choices however wrong they seem to the rest of us, but I don’t agree with it. Government and society has a responsibility to set limits for those who do not have the capacity to control themselves, both for their own good and that of wider society. That’s why you can’t order a gram of cocaine with your carling in a pub, and why you can’t carry a gun. Blowing benefit money – or hard-earned money to the extent of getting into financial trouble – to line the pockets of businesses is bad for the individual and for society in general.
Surely the key point about the FOBTs is the FO, Fixed Odds implying just that. The machines are required by law to have a minimum percentage payout displayed, this means that when audited these machines must have paid out according to their advertised rates. In the distant days of AWP (fruit machines) in betting shops their actual payout was marginally higher than the advertised figure. Therefore the machines are fixed, but not in any way other than which is very discretely advertised on the machine.
Due to the appeal of these machines to those of a compulsive gambling disposition, the machines should carry frightening Government Health warnings.On the point of computer generated random numbers, Basic uses Randomize and Rnd functions to produce numbers in a set sequence but starting at a random point in that sequence. As the human brain could not retain a sequence of such length, the random starting point is sufficient to satisfy the term random as a concept to the human mind. How other languages achieve a randomly generated number I am not certain but the principal is probably the same although the complexity of the sequence and selection of the starting point are far more intricate than when I first encountered them.
I respect the views of those who say grown-ups should be able to make their own choices however wrong they seem to the rest of us, but I don’t agree with it. Government and society has a responsibility to set limits for those who do not have the capacity to control themselves, both for their own good and that of wider society. That’s why you can’t order a gram of cocaine with your carling in a pub, and why you can’t carry a gun. Blowing benefit money – or hard-earned money to the extent of getting into financial trouble – to line the pockets of businesses is bad for the individual and for society in general.
But you can order drugs with your coffee in Holland and many of our MPs support legalising it here.
In America and other places you can carry a gun and as this news item shows, it isn’t necessarily a bad idea full stop http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/fl … -not-face/
But I get where you’re coming from (a bit) on protecting people who are not capable of making the best decisions for themselves and maybe we should bring in forced sterilisation to prevent the cradle to grave benefits under class that has no useful purpose apart from breeding more cradle to grave benefits criminals – at least it would stop them from being abused by FOBTs.
Paul among others has said "who decides on morality" and that’s not a simple answer.
Trying to argue whether one form of gambling is better than other on a racing forum is like trying to argue it’s okay to whip a horse eight times but not nine.
If society doesn’t ‘man up’ in some areas it might descend into a spiral of doom.
The 2nd Amendment to the US constitution is one of the most abhorrent pieces of legislature in the democratic world.
The numbers do not have to be random, only the payout percentage is regulated, so they are free to use whatever psychological techniques the manufacturer chooses. Hence "Fixed Odds".
On the point of computer generated random numbers, Basic uses Randomize and Rnd functions to produce numbers in a set sequence but starting at a random point in that sequence.
Interesting, thanks. I take it to mean from "psychological techniques" that the machines can be programmed to churn out a string of preordained numbers designed to fool the user into believing a certain number ‘must’ be due next based on the pattern of the string, as in Getzippy’s example of 13/31 12/21 23/32
So, it actually matters little if an FOBT player understands probability as he/she is not playing a game of ‘true chance’ anyway but one in which there is not only an inbuilt house profit (fixed odds) but also a ‘loaded dice’
If so, I find that remarkable and frankly no more than deception, if apparently legal deception
What a nasty little world
Drone, it is little better than a legalized form of "Find the Lady", all it lacks is the "roll up! roll up!" and scantily clad female assistant to take the mug’s eye off the point they are supposed to be concentrating upon.
But you can order drugs with your coffee in Holland and many of our MPs support legalising it here.
.
Indeed, but not cocaine. On the scale of drugs it is legal to buy in the UK we include alcohol and tobacco but not weed or hard drugs. In Holland their scale is a little different and includes weed. I would argue in the realm of gambling, such things as betting on sports and the lottery are soft drugs. Games with instant results and high potential winnings compared to stake such as FOBT and scratchcards are hard drugs.
I take it to mean from "psychological techniques" that the machines can be programmed to churn out a string of preordained numbers designed to fool the user into believing a certain number ‘must’ be due next based on the pattern of the string, as in Getzippy’s example of 13/31 12/21 23/32
So, it actually matters little if an FOBT player understands probability as he/she is not playing a game of ‘true chance’ anyway but one in which there is not only an inbuilt house profit (fixed odds) but also a ‘loaded dice’
If so, I find that remarkable and frankly no more than deception, if apparently legal deception
What a nasty little world
It is, and I feel the people who realise it’s a nasty world should have some responsibility for helping those who don’t.
I think we’re all being pretty rational in this debate.
Drone – I understand that there is a scientific argument that no RNG is truly random – food for thought, sure.
Eclipse First – If the Wibbly Wobbly Wheels of Death had a scantily clad lady offering up the numbers I may change my mind about ’em!
On that point – it’s amazing how sex and gambling are often entwined to appeal to the male punter. All those sexy Eastern European dealers on the virtual blackjack tables of our esteemed bookmakers.
If the machine is
choosing
whether a number is a losing or wining spin – isn’t that taking the randomness out of it?
Surely, it is not for the machine to decide – but fate, sir!?
I’ll deffo try and catch Dispatches (prob via the net on Tue).
Be interesting to see what you all think of it.
Zip
First post be gentle
I work for Ladbrokes and have done so for over 25 years. I thought I would give you good folks on the site my thoughts on FOBT’s from the view from the other side of the counter.
Firstly, lets dispel the myth that these machines are not random. They are, and have to be random to comply with the Gambling Act 2005. Every machine must have a notice on it declaring that they are random and as far as I can see since they were installed I have never seen a "fixed machine"
Secondly, there have been various comments on this topic about the payout percentage to customers. Lets try and set that one straight too. Roulette on these machines does not have a set percentage. How could it if it is a random game? In my shop I am able to go into the logs on each machine to track what each machine is paying. I have four machines as most shops do.
Percentage payouts to customers on roulette.
Machine 1 99.6%
Machine 2 98.4%
Machine 3 98.6%
Machine 4 101.3%So I have two machines operating over the period since the machines were installed (Jan 2011) at roughly what could be considered the norm, one just about breaking even, and one machine which is actually costing the company money. Over a short period of time these figures would mean nothing, over the lifetime of a machine I believe these prove the randomness of the machines.
Thirdly, much has been written about these machines causing addiction. I would have to say that I totally agree with those comments, you cannot sit in a betting shop five days a week without noticing changes to the personalities of your customers.
These machines have ruined the lives of some people and it is very sad to see that happening. Under the terms of the Gambling Act every bookmaker has a duty of care.To keep crime out of gambling.
To protect children and vulnerable people form being exposed or exploited by gambling.
To ensure gambling is conducted in an open and fair manner.I genuinely believe that we fall down on the second one above because people who are addicted to these machines are not being protected by the staff. In all honesty the vast majority of staff pay no attention to what is happening in the machine zone, and simply empty the machines at night. We are supposed, after discussion with a supervisor, to approach a customer we believe is having issues with their gambling and offer them assistance. Gamcare number, leaflets etc. In my experience this NEVER happens. I have asked to approach a customer and been told, let them come to you, it’s their problem. I do not know if this issue is widespread, and I accept customers have a personal responsibility for their actions, however we as shop staff MUST do more than we currently do.
Fourthly, everything now in shop is geared towards machines. We are told that we must be out on the shop floor greeting customers and talking to them almost like Captain Peacock from Are You Being Served! We must run around making tea and coffee for our machine players to entice them to stay longer. We are told to ask them if they want anything brought in while they are playing. Would you like me to get you a sandwich is an example we have been given. Again do not let them get off that seat! It is absolutely ludicrous what we are expected to do. Over the counter horse business is in terminal decline, if the major companies put as much effort into that as they do to the endless string of machine tournaments and promotions then maybe shops could start to get back to what a betting shop should be.
Sorry for such a long post, it’s a subject I feel strongly about. There is a place in betting shops for these machines, I am convinced of that, however things really do need to be much tighter in my opinion, with much more accountability for the big companies especially at all levels to ensure the duty of care is observed as it should be.
Meerkat, welcome, excellent maiden post – you will be in a few notebooks for the future!
Whoever it was who told you not to approach customers and offer help if you suspect a person is a problem gambler – or in danger of becoming one – could, through a strict interpretation of the 2005 Act, cost Ladbrokes their entire business. The Gambling Commission has the power to strip them of their operator’s licence for behaving in the manner you cited.
It’s good to see hard figures on the machine pay-out rates: conspiracy theorists can often take an issue by the scruff of its emotional neck and drag it around in any direction they choose.
Anyone who thinks a multi-billion pound business will be founded on the rigging of machines returning profits of around £920 a week per machine, ought to use logic. If FOBTs were withdrawn from shops tomorrow, half of the shops, at least, would be closed by the end of the year.
FOBTs are great for bookmakers at the moment; the weakness from a business viewpoint is that the eggs from these golden geese are just about the only ones in the retail basket.
Aji’s case on You win/You lose has merit in any bet based on virtual gaming. All the money spent on developing colourful and convincing graphics, racecards, etc for virtual horseracing is a worthwhile (for the bookies) facade for pinging out random numbers, albeit weighted numbers in this case (aligned with the SP).
The fact that these numbers appear on the saddlecloth of a virtual horse rather than a virtual plastic bingo ball shows that it ain’t what you do it’s the way that you do it.
In virtual racing’s first year, a Glasgow punter had a £10,000 bet on one ‘race’. It lost.
I’m surprised bookmakers are not concentrating more on developing VR – in time it could prove a useful bulwark against the potential loss of FOBTs. Also, no Levy is paid, nor media rights money. Its meetings are never abandoned or decimated by non-runners and you won’t find a bent trainer or dodgy jockey anywhere.
though in this relatively old skeptic your words do strike a chord
I’ve grinned and borne the burden of watching a bit of X-Factor, Big Brother and their ilk and have to say that ‘in real life’ I haven’t met anyone who resembles the contestants on these programmes. They are, for want of a better term ‘freak shows’ populated by exhibitionists with ‘issues’ and therefore not representative of the populace at large. Squalid voyeurism attracts and as that keen obsever of the seedier side of society, HL Mencken, said back in the 1930s "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the [American] public" Times haven’t changed then?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.