- This topic has 89 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Interesting that Labour has finally admitted that its disastrous policy on relaxing restrictions on gambling has caused so many problems.
Deputy leader Harriet Harman has admitted: "I think we were wrong. We have made a mistake and we need to do something about it.
"If we had known then we know now (about the clustering of shops), we wouldn’t have allowed this.
"It’s not just ruining the high street. It’s ruining people’s lives."
Harman, the high priestess of political correctness who normally refuses to acknowledge not one single mistake about Labour’s time in office, admitted that the proliferation of FOBTs in betting shops was blighting poor communities.
Labour, supposedly the party of the poor and the underdog but actually full of privately educated hypocrites like Harperson, has, through relaxing the gambling rules, done more to damage its supposed own people than any other Government.
David Blunkett, a former Labour Home Secretary, admitted: "If the present Government tightened up on all this, it would be a good thing."
Even more interesting and a sign that nothing is likely to change is the Culture Department spokesman’s statement that there were no plans to amend Labour’s Gambling Act "unless there is clear evidence of a need to do so".
There is a clear need — but not clear enough actually to do anything about it.excellent post Meerkat . one to note indeed , also very good points by Joe (Steeple )…this sorry state needs sorting , however it will be say at least 5/10 yrs before any of the mainstream parties get around to fixing
One thing for sure , Horse racing is losing out big time ,the drip feeding of continual low grade has and is taking its toll on betting customers , terminal yes no doubt
Will our rulers try and abort that . no chance
Betting on horses will be conducted on exchanges , betting shops will be mini casinos , the parting of the ways is almost complete
This was part of a post that Zorro (Paul Haigh ) made here about 5 yrs ago . how entirely right he was , and what a loss he is to this forum
IMO
Ricky
the drip feeding of continual low grade has and is taking its toll on betting customers , terminal yes no doubt
I don’t know about that Ricky. Having seen the program, it seems clear that the ‘new’ punter has no interest in racing anyway and never has done. We all make comments on our racing forum insisting that too much racing, too many 0-60’s, too many non-runners etc etc is what is putting punters off but I think what we really mean is “I don’t like that particular aspect of racing, but I’m still a fan”.
Such issues are completely irrelevant to these new punters and it looks like we are now into a new age of gambling in which horseracing plays only a minor part.
Maybe we’ll look back at the stages of betting shop development thus:
1 – Shops are totally dependent on horse racing.
2 – Shops have plenty of other sports to bet on, but horse racing still drives the majority footfall.
3 – FOBT’s now drive footfall & profits so shops become entirely dependent on them.
4 – Due to the expense, shops stop offering horserace betting. Virtual racing fills the diminishing gap for the ‘horses’ fans.
We’re at stage three now.
Mike
Mike , I agree in full …
Thats why I mentioned the Zorro post , at the time I too saw that as the future , we are at that stage now
Betting shop punters do not need horse racing , virtual , dogs , football , Fobt , are more than enough to whet the appetite
Horse racing punters now operate mostly on exchanges , specialist internet / phone services , Bet 365 , william H , Laddies . etc ….horse bettors nowadays are thinly populated as betting shop habituees …imo
I repeat to any new forumites interested in horse racing , stay away from betting shops , get to know your speciality , stick to it and enjoy a little profit
cheers
Ricky
Mike , I agree in full …
Thats why I mentioned the Zorro post , at the time I too saw that as the future , we are at that stage now
Betting shop punters do not need horse racing , virtual , dogs , football , Fobt , are more than enough to whet the appetite
Horse racing punters now operate mostly on exchanges , specialist internet / phone services , Bet 365 , william H , Laddies . etc ….horse bettors nowadays are thinly populated as betting shop habituees …imo
I repeat to any new forumites interested in horse racing , stay away from betting shops , get to know your speciality , stick to it and enjoy a little profit
cheers
Ricky
the drip feeding of continual low grade has and is taking its toll on betting customers , terminal yes no doubt
I don’t know about that Ricky. Having seen the program, it seems clear that the ‘new’ punter has no interest in racing anyway and never has done. We all make comments on our racing forum insisting that too much racing, too many 0-60’s, too many non-runners etc etc is what is putting punters off but I think what we really mean is “I don’t like that particular aspect of racing, but I’m still a fan”.
Such issues are completely irrelevant to these new punters and it looks like we are now into a new age of gambling in which horseracing plays only a minor part.
Maybe we’ll look back at the stages of betting shop development thus:
1 – Shops are totally dependent on horse racing.
2 – Shops have plenty of other sports to bet on, but horse racing still drives the majority footfall.
3 – FOBT’s now drive footfall & profits so shops become entirely dependent on them.
4 – Due to the expense, shops stop offering horserace betting. Virtual racing fills the diminishing gap for the ‘horses’ fans.
We’re at stage three now.
Mike
Perfectly summed up
So, horseracing started gambling for the common man but has now been surpassed by technology and society’s acceptance and encouragement of gambling.
That’s called progress and is inevitable isn’t it?
Today facebook launches real money gambling games and mobile apps are now available so you can FOBT it on your iPhone.
Progress never stops and racing and racecourses have to try to survive through it and it’s trying to by encouraging a new breed of customer and by offering different packages – fashion, parties, entertainment, etc – business as Paul calls it.
If bookmakers do decide they can do without racing and move to just online gambling games and self-serve machine shops, where will that leave funding for racing – what is racing’s business continuity plan for that – has it even considered it?
If bookmakers do decide they can do without racing and move to just online gambling games and self-serve machine shops, where will that leave funding for racing – what is racing’s business continuity plan for that – has it even considered it?
Racing has no plan because there is no such body as ‘Racing’.
Racing comprises:
Racecourse groups
Individual racecourses
Breeders
Owners
Trainers
Jockeys
Those employed in the industryAll of the above want as much as they can get, as individuals, from Racing’s income:
gate money
sponsorship
media rights
LevyAll of this income depends on fixtures. The body which is supposed to run racing, the BHA, surrendered the commercial rights to those fixtures. Cue mayhem.
The Horsemen made an attempt at forming a united group, an idea which might have worked had the people running it had any clue at all about effective business strategy.
If Racing can be described as a single entity, it’s a pie or perhaps a trough.
As a pie it is crumbling due to the aggression of the many fingers poking at it. As a trough its joints are creaking and its bottom holed from the invasion of desperate snouts.
What would save it, imo, is the BHA with an astute CEO who’d quickly dispense with the current 31 committees through which almost everything is decided. He/she should then act as a benign dictator (a Peter Savill with nous), get the fixtures rights back and use them to pull all the battling bodies into line.
Joe
some quality posts on this thread , by any chance do the numpties that run racing read this forum , if so a few clues can be gleaned
great stuff Joe
Ricky
What would save it, imo, is the BHA with an astute CEO who’d quickly dispense with the current 31 committees through which almost everything is decided. He/she should then act as a benign dictator (a Peter Savill with nous), get the fixtures rights back and use them to pull all the battling bodies into line.
Joe
The only word I would disagree with is "benign" it needs a totally ruthless person to sort things out.
Meerkat – thank you for providing those figures from your shop – which made interesting reading.
Do you see less punters win on the FOBTS, say, compared to three years ago? Do you see any unusual patterns? That a machine is either on suck mode or dump mode?
Would it be fair to say, that the way the machine plays can affect the way a percentage is reached?
The hypothesis being: That if a FOBT machine was programmed to shaft punters continuously and then throw in a big win or streak, thus making it more addictive IMHO, would that not prove the machine is not random? It is surely homologous with a fruit machine?
I thought Dispatches was OK – could have been a bit more investigation into how FOBTs work both mechanically and psychologically – but I guess until there is proof – no journalist would want to take the risk of questioning their legality.
Zip
What would save it, imo, is the BHA with an astute CEO who’d quickly dispense with the current 31 committees through which almost everything is decided. He/she should then act as a benign dictator (a Peter Savill with nous), get the fixtures rights back and use them to pull all the battling bodies into line.
Joe
The only word I would disagree with is "benign" it needs a totally ruthless person to sort things out.
You’re probably right Paul. ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick’ is probably more what I was looking for. I think Savill had the necessary ruthlessness but he just wound too many people up.
Ruthlessness and cunning in equal measures might be the ideal though I doubt that claim would feature in the ‘My Personal Strengths’ section of many CVs.
Joe Stalin anyone?
Meerkat – thank you for providing those figures from your shop – which made interesting reading.
Do you see less punters win on the FOBTS, say, compared to three years ago? Do you see any unusual patterns? That a machine is either on suck mode or dump mode?
Would it be fair to say, that the way the machine plays can affect the way a percentage is reached?
The hypothesis being: That if a FOBT machine was programmed to shaft punters continuously and then throw in a big win or streak, thus making it more addictive IMHO, would that not prove the machine is not random? It is surely homologous with a fruit machine?
I thought Dispatches was OK – could have been a bit more investigation into how FOBTs work both mechanically and psychologically – but I guess until there is proof – no journalist would want to take the risk of questioning their legality.
Zip
If you had a print out of the program and could decipher how the routines for number selection were determined then you could have an understanding of how the machine functions. The fundamental point is that from the point of view of the roulette games on the machines, the process of number selection is probably significantly different from the process of number selection on a physical roulette table. If that can be proved then it is fair to say that the FOBTs offer a form of virtual roulette but that the way it plays means that it should not be called roulette.
The fact that the payout has been shown as higher than standard roulette certainly gives rise to a suspicion that whatever the game is, it should not be called roulette. Perhaps "Running the numbers" would be a more realistic name.Very informative post Meerkat, many thanks.
I used to manage a betting office for a small chain of bookies. I got out of the business once night racing, Sunday Racing and Terminator (The Rise of the Machines) took place. In the years since, the shops I visit have become more like Casinos. You are lucky if you can get about three minutes peace before some computer generated animal race is presented as an opportunity for you to be parted from your money. Punters gaze like zombies at the screens of legalised theft machines while you get the impression that the staff are just about to pass you through an industrial mangle to wring every penny out of you. It is a farce that there are token signs stating that "gambling should be fun" "Please bet responsibly" etc whilst at the same time you are bombarded with opportunities to lose money every other minute.
I remember a scene from an episode of the Simpsons where Marge Simpson was addicted to fruit machines. Waylon Smithers stepped up and asked Marge "Excuse me Madam, don’t you think you have gambled enough?" "NO!!" she replied, to which Smithers stated "Carry on then, it is just that the Gaming Commission requires that we ask our customers every 72 hours"
That about sums up the situation, you have about as much chance of seeing supermarkets refusing to sell cakes to obese customers.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Very informative post Meerkat, many thanks.
I used to manage a betting office for a small chain of bookies. I got out of the business once night racing, Sunday Racing and Terminator (The Rise of the Machines) took place. In the years since, the shops I visit have become more like Casinos. You are lucky if you can get about three minutes peace before some computer generated animal race is presented as an opportunity for you to be parted from your money. Punters gaze like zombies at the screens of legalised theft machines while you get the impression that the staff are just about to pass you through an industrial mangle to wring every penny out of you. It is a farce that there are token signs stating that "gambling should be fun" "Please bet responsibly" etc whilst at the same time you are bombarded with opportunities to lose money every other minute.
I remember a scene from an episode of the Simpsons where Marge Simpson was addicted to fruit machines. Waylon Smithers stepped up and asked Marge "Excuse me Madam, don’t you think you have gambled enough?" "NO!!" she replied, to which Smithers stated "Carry on then, it is just that the Gaming Commission requires that we ask our customers every 72 hours"
That about sums up the situation, you have about as much chance of seeing supermarkets refusing to sell cakes to obese customers.
Brilliant!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.