- This topic has 349 replies, 108 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Thanks SC
The satisfaction felt by giving the off-course turf accountants a very wide berth nowadays is suitibly reinforced.
Still, being a libertarian I’m not going to take the moral high ground concerning the addictive nature of FOBTs; individuals can squander what they like chasing an impossible dream. Trouble is it tends to be the nearest and dearest of the individual who share the pain; and that ain’t liberty.
A shame that bookmakers have to be the beneficiaries of this pain – or guaranteed money for old rope if you prefer.
…that it’s come to this
Would be interested to know how much turnover is registered on fobt’s as opposed to live racing – also turnover of live horse racing as opposed to virtual racing – i still cant believe people bet at portman park etc but obviously they do – maybe because its totally 100 percent chance
Quote: from absolution on 9:37 pm on Jan. 10, 2007[br]- maybe because its totally 100 percent chance
Every event would add up to 100 percent chance?? Real Horse racing – Portman Park etc…
I dont think the cartoon racing lasted long on Sky. A mate of mine, who had a bit of a gambling problem got stung with a poker machine and hasnt been in the bookies since.
He lost loads in an afternoon. I think once he started playing he couldn’t stop until all of his money was gone and I mean ALL of it.
Dreadful stuff – sadly with these FOBT’s – they have a fixed percentage payout – the more you play the more you pay – and chasing losses as with all forms of gambling is really the road to the poor house.
The gambling commission have it seriously wrong if they don’t think FOBT’s are addictive – they are gambling machines – gambling is addictive – and these are a real licence to print money.
FOBT’s have a 2.9% rake off on t/o
betfair has a 5% rake off on t/o
why is one more addictive than the other,
silly me, know the answer, betfair only played by shrewd winners, fobt’s by mugs.
The :old: ring
:grumpy: :grumpy: :grumpy:
would rake off 20% same as the three cherries :biggrin:
Quote: from barry dennis on 8:51 am on Jan. 11, 2007[br]FOBT’s have a 2.9% rake off on t/o
betfair has a 5% rake off on t/o
why is one more addictive than the other,
silly me, know the answer, betfair only played by shrewd winners, fobt’s by mugs.<br>
That’s a fair point Barry. If you read the BF forum, you KNOW that there are people out there in online-gambling land who bet in every race every day. But at least there is some element of skill/judgement involved in punting horses. The same cannot be said of FOBTs.
Do you have a blind spot when it comes to numbers Barry?
Since when have BF charged rake off on turnover? The actual figure is nearer 1% than 5% as they charge net commission on profits not t/o.
Then we have your 20% better odds. Again you were out by a factor of five looking at the most recent winning jolly (2/1 course, 4/1 BF – 100% better)
I’m told the off-course industry wish that you were only out by a factor of five when you claimed that bookie turnover per race was £10m. I would humbly suggest it’s a fair way south of £2m.
As for The Gambling Commission report, didn’t their methodology involve asking everyone in the shop who would answer (which would have included none of the people transfixed to the FOBTs) about their FOBT problems? I remember a similar methodology used to survey racegoers a few years ago, which led to reports of 44% of racegoers being women. I don’t think they are.
You have to ask the question: if bookies didn’t believe in their heart of hearts that these machines were addictive, why do they have them in their shops displacing higher margin products?
(Edited by Glenn at 9:47 am on Jan. 11, 2007)
But at least there is some element of skill/judgement involved in punting horses. The same cannot be said of FOBTs.
Quite right David
To me, what on earth is the point on betting on something where you have just as much chance of winning as a retarded monkey?
The optimist in me thinks that these new developments can also be crazes too. There still has to be more of a buzz from betting on a real event surely?
thedarkknight, exactly.
clivex, millionaire successful business men and women play roulette every night for pleasure, bet you/d like to be a penny behind those retarded monkeys.
<br>glenn, 44% racegoers women, " you dont think so" what would you know, have you been racing and counted them?
what betting shop has fobt’s DISPLACING other betting mediums?
How many people actually consider any gambling medium in terms of whether they are games of skill, or games of chance (or something in between)?
I’d say very few.
In fact, in my experience many people seem to get the games of chance/skill mixed up.
I’ve had the misfortune over the years to be bored rigid by quite a few misguided souls sharing with me their new found systems for beating roulette and similar.
But that’s nothing compared to the literally hundreds of people who have sworn blind to me that it’s impossible to win on the horses.
Perhaps racing should be doing more to explain what it offers as a betting experience that makes it more satisfying (and potentially more rewarding) than casino-type competition?
Quote: from barry dennis on 11:10 am on Jan. 11, 2007[br]<br>glenn,  44% racegoers women, " you dont think so" what would you know, have you been racing and counted them?
I’d be more than happy to if you’d lay me a big enough bet on unders to make it worth my while. Perhaps you’d like to put up or shut up.
glenn any amount you even dream about,
how the hell do YOU intend proving YOUR figures are correct.
stop while your behind
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.