- This topic has 38 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Drone alluded to the ‘battle’ between bookmaker and punter, the age-old pitting of wits. Leaving the dismal social consequences of these machines aside for a moment, maybe it’s this that we all find the most offensive? The retreat from racing; the closing of accounts. The end of the ‘game’.
With their shiny FOBT toys, the new generation of bookmakers have shown us what they really think. They’ve stripped gambling down to it’s core – a mathematical game of chance where only only one side can win. No ‘game’, no challenge, no pitting of wits. Just a mechanical fleecing of the punter until he is broke.
If this is the new landscape, why would they fuss about the arcane and expensive (for them) promotion of racing? Why go to all that fuss for 17% of a punters pound when you can just turn a machine on and reapeatedly get 100%?
Mr Wood’s idea that machines need to be banned or heavily restricted gets full support from me but that will be fought tooth and nail by the bookmakers. Furthermore, it will need new legislation of which there is absolutely no sign at present.
Mike
Mr Wood’s idea that machines need to be banned or heavily restricted gets full support from me but that will be fought tooth and nail by the bookmakers. Furthermore, it will need new legislation of which there is absolutely no sign at present.
Mike
On what grounds would you support a ban or restriction Mike?
Is it to "protect" racing? If so why should racing be protected by legislation? Why shouldn’t racing have to survive on its own two feet like any other business does. If it is strong enough to survive in the big wide world then good luck to it, if it cannot cope or adapt in the competitive world then, like any other business, it deserves to fail. I cannot see any reason why racing should have any special legislative protection.
If your support is to help those "addictive" punters, what right do you, I or anybody have to tell another person how to spend their money? We may not agree or approve of how they spend their money but it is not for us to stop them? How would you react if, for example, there was a call for the abolition of betting on horse racing? (after all some people spend more than they can afford on horseacing betting). I suspect quite strongly and you would, rightly, tell them to take a hike.
We live in a, supposedly, free society – I don’t want anybody, especially "the state" telling me what I can and cannot spend my money on.
OK they ban / restrict the use of FOBT’s – what next, where is the line drawn and how do you justify one restriction and not another? What is and who defines the arbitrary line which says you can ban / restrict betting on FOBT’s but not on racing or football?
The state already tells what you can or can’t spend your money on. Try buying the original crack cocaine and you won’t find it on the shelves of any high street retailer, while other drugs that aren’t so correlated with crime are.
What racing needs to do is fund research to see if the general suspicion that these machines are more addictive than racing betting and have far greater negative repercussions societywide is correct.
If the research shows this to be the case, it’s perfectly reasonable for racing to lobby for regulation to be tightened up and/or taxes to be hiked on these products. It’s not begging.
Mr Wood’s idea that machines need to be banned or heavily restricted gets full support from me but that will be fought tooth and nail by the bookmakers. Furthermore, it will need new legislation of which there is absolutely no sign at present.
Mike
On what grounds would you support a ban or restriction Mike?
Is it to "protect" racing? If so why should racing be protected by legislation? Why shouldn’t racing have to survive on its own two feet like any other business does. If it is strong enough to survive in the big wide world then good luck to it, if it cannot cope or adapt in the competitive world then, like any other business, it deserves to fail. I cannot see any reason why racing should have any special legislative protection.
If your support is to help those "addictive" punters, what right do you, I or anybody have to tell another person how to spend their money? We may not agree or approve of how they spend their money but it is not for us to stop them? How would you react if, for example, there was a call for the abolition of betting on horse racing? (after all some people spend more than they can afford on horseacing betting). I suspect quite strongly and you would, rightly, tell them to take a hike.
We live in a, supposedly, free society – I don’t want anybody, especially "the state" telling me what I can and cannot spend my money on.
OK they ban / restrict the use of FOBT’s – what next, where is the line drawn and how do you justify one restriction and not another? What is and who defines the arbitrary line which says you can ban / restrict betting on FOBT’s but not on racing or football?
The grounds on which I’d support a ban/restriction on these machines has nothing to do with the state of racing’s finances.
I’d like to see them go because I believe they are immoral and dangerous:
1. They encourage addiction. In fact that is the preferred state for bookmaker’s FOBT customers.
2. There is no skill or opinion-based element.
3. They are highly concentrated in many of Britain’s poorest areas.
4. There is increasing anecdotal evidence that they cause violence & antisocial behaviour.
5. They transform many High Streets into ugly, unpleasant places.Do you think these things are edifying? Do you think their presence benefits the country? You say that you don’t want anybody, especially "the state" telling you what you spend your money on. But it already does in many areas, mostly by making such things illegal. Despite your predicatble uber-libertarian stance, you know full well that society often attempts to protect people from themselves.
I don’t have a right to ‘tell’ people not to gamble on these machines but I do have a right to support and potentially vote for a ban.
Mike
The grounds on which I’d support a ban/restriction on these machines has nothing to do with the state of racing’s finances.
I’d like to see them go because I believe they are immoral and dangerous:
so because
you
think they are immoral they should be banned – what gives you the right to impose your moral values on others?
To my knowledge no FOBT has killed or maimed anybody – more people are harmed by cars than FOBT’s – should they be banned as well?
1. They encourage addiction. In fact that is the preferred state for bookmaker’s FOBT customers.
So should fruit machines also be banned as well?
2. There is no skill or opinion-based element.
There is no skill in roulette, should that be banned? Indeed there is little skill in betting on horses for a large number of punters – a large number bet on things like names or family coincidences?
4. There is increasing anecdotal evidence that they cause violence & antisocial behaviour.
Alcohol causes more violence and anti-social behaviour, on that basis there is more of an argument for banning alcohol, so you would presumably support a ban on booze as well?
5. They transform many High Streets into ugly, unpleasant places.
That really is clutching at straws!!!
Do you think these things are edifying?
I wouldn’t go anywhere near one but that doesn’t give me the right to stop others who want to play them.
Do you think their presence benefits the country?
Yes they create jobs in the betting industry. They provide income for the nation in terms on VAT and the AMLD.
You say that you don’t want anybody, especially "the state" telling you what you spend your money on. But it already does in many areas, mostly by making such things illegal.
That doesn’t make it right – yes drugs and the like which cause physical harm should be banned and in that category I would also include alcohol and tobacco.
You accept that playing to extinction is the typical style. Therefore I don’t see why you’re reading so much into experiments adjusting rake.
If the rake is increased from 3% to 4.5% and players play until they’re broke then by definition turnover will fall by a third, as it takes them less turnover to go broke. This is tautologous and conveys absolutely no information about players’ ‘sense of value’ vis-a-vis horse racing.
My experience of fruit machine players is that they don’t mind losing their money but they at least expect a "run" for that money.
When I was a betting shop manager in the 90’s the AWP (Amusements with prizes) machines were the new kids on the block and we were not sure how successful they would be, given the modest £10 Jackpot limit at the time. They were a good success though, despite the reservations.
Our machines were set at an 80% payout, as opposed to the company pubs where the payout set at a miserly 70%. Our best ever earning machine was Francome’s Winning Line which had former champion Jockey, and excellent paddock judge, Johnny Francome guiding us through stewards enquiries, collecting rosettes and entering the Winners Enclosure. It was discovered that this machine had been set at 88% payout in error and punters would play it knowing that there was a sequence where you won £30 in the winners enclosure followed by £40 to £50 on the best feature Francome’s Winning Run. The guy from head office had the bright idea to return the percentage to 80 and the first time we emptied the machine it was stuffed with cash. However, punters learned quickly that the machine wasn’t playing the same way anymore and it became a quiet machine as punters didn’t feel that they were getting any value or fun from it. We had to replace it pretty quickly!!
The key point is that you have to balance the percentage against the throughput of cash. 10% of a busy machine is better than 20% of one sitting idle.
There was also a Frankie’s Magnificent Seven machine back in the day. It was a load of old crap though, with the occasional "Hey" from Frankie and the rare "You are a winner, you have won the Jackpot" but the most it ever paid in my lifetime was £30. Now that Richard Hughes has, sort of, repeated the feat perhaps it is time for "Dick’s Big Seven Up" to grace the floors of our betting shops and bring a whole new meaning to pumping the puggy
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Sorry Paul, but I find all your points absurd. You are basically saying that I am not allowed to have an opinion in case it rails against someone else’s. Read the last sentence of my previous post.
Legislation is entirely about imposing value sets on people. I didn’t have any problem with foxhunting nor did I vote for the party that wanted to ban it. However, it was the will of the people and as such, it was banned. The people imposed their moral values on me. In a democracy, one has to accept such judgments.
Likewise I am allowed to impose my moral values on the people (as they are on me) via the ballot box. The Daily Mail-style ludicrous extrapolation of my points (So you want cars banned then? etc etc) belongs in the fourth-form and is irrelevant. Still, I suppose you avoided mentioning the Nazis.
I believe that FOBT’s belong in casinos not in the High Street. I would like to see them made illegal in betting shops. I would vote for someone who proposed this. I don’t regard those statements as anything other than perfectly acceptable and rational.
Mike
meanwhile back min the real world , punters are stuffing those machines full of cash each day
The law will not change , if anything bookies will be allowed to have more ….we need to get over it
Real world again ….racing will flounder unless it makes a shape to self fund , this is an economic certainty
Unless this happens soon you are going to see courses close and centralized racing become a fact of life …
Lets leave the moral morass behind and think about the future of the game
cheers
Ricky ……imo
- Total Posts 438
… drugs and the like which cause physical harm should be banned and in that category I would also include alcohol and tobacco.
So FOBT addiction doesn’t cause "physical harm"?
Try telling that to the people who have been mugged or stabbed by those desperate to feed their FOBT addiction. And yes, I have seen it with my own eyes.
… drugs and the like which cause physical harm should be banned and in that category I would also include alcohol and tobacco.
So FOBT addiction doesn’t cause "physical harm"?
Try telling that to the people who have been mugged or stabbed by those desperate to feed their FOBT addiction. And yes, I have seen it with my own eyes.
Any form of addiction can result in physical harm in some way or another.
How about people take responsibility for their own actions – it’s called self discipline.
Of course personal responsibility is a rarity nowadays as the default position now is who can I blame, other than myself, for my predicament.
Although more accurately it should be who can I sue for my own inadequacies?
Sorry Paul, but I find all your points absurd. You are basically saying that I am not allowed to have an opinion in case it rails against someone else’s. Read the last sentence of my previous post.
I’m saying nothing of the sort Mike and you twisting what I am saying is no different than what you are accusing me of.
Legislation is entirely about imposing value sets on people. I didn’t have any problem with foxhunting nor did I vote for the party that wanted to ban it. However, it was the will of the people and as such, it was banned. The people imposed their moral values on me. In a democracy, one has to accept such judgments.
Totally agree with you but in the case of FOBT’s the vast majority of the population are probably not even aware of their existence nor could they care about them. Indeed I also suspect the vast majority of the population would have little or no sympathy for those who do fritter away their money gambling.
I would suggest most of those arguing against FOBT’s are those who perceive a detrimental, secondary, effect on their hobby i.e. racing – to take the Daily Mail analogy NIMBYism.
Likewise I am allowed to impose my moral values on the people (as they are on me) via the ballot box. The Daily Mail-style ludicrous extrapolation of my points (So you want cars banned then? etc etc) belongs in the fourth-form and is irrelevant. Still, I suppose you avoided mentioning the Nazis.
That is ridiculous – I was simply trying to point out it is too simplistic to use arguments against FOBT’s, which may well be valid, but ignoring the fact the very same argument could be made more strongly against other causes. Again twisting what I said doesn’t add to constructive debate.
I believe that FOBT’s belong in casinos not in the High Street. I would like to see them made illegal in betting shops. I would vote for someone who proposed this. I don’t regard those statements as anything other than perfectly acceptable and rational.Mike
So a straight question Mike, no tricks, would you also want to see amusement arcades banned on the High Street?
So a straight question Mike, no tricks, would you also want to see amusement arcades banned on the High Street?
"To my knowledge no FOBT has killed or maimed anybody – more people are harmed by cars than FOBT’s – should they be banned as well?"
I’m sorry but I still can’t accept the above as being anything other than a silly non-argument.
To answer your question: I am presuming that amusement arcades offer an FOBT-lite experience (not up on them to be honest) and if so then yes, I would like to see them closed down. I remember there being one in Rugby when I worked there many years ago which attracted a huge amount of schoolchildren (no doubt illegally).
I don’t think there is any place for addictive, rapid-play, non-skilled games on the High Street.
Mike
I lean towards libertarianism too in that I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they like to themselves, provided it doesn’t hurt others, and the financial ruin of an individual in the majority of cases impinges on nearest and dearest.
A defining feature of a civilized society is in my view one in which a duty of care is due to the vulnerable in that society, and these FOBTs strike me as being explicitly geared towards exploiting the weaknesses inherent in the vulnerable: the effortless quick fix, but not the amusement arcade fix costing pennies but the bookmakers’ fix costing pounds…and pounds
It’s all very well for those with a strong character such as Paul to bang on about self-discipline and responsibility for one’s own actions; yes, thoroughly worthy virtues they are that should be encouraged, but those whose character is forged from a rod of iron should realise they are fortunate indeed: the exception, not the norm
The ‘strong’ being the lucky exception should sympathise with and care for the ‘weak’, not dismiss them as being hopeless easily-led lost causes who deserve all they get because they don’t or can’t meet the high, virtuous standards of the tough, intelligent freethinker
That may read as being somewhat preachy and pompous, so let me make it clear that I too get annoyed by the fecklessness of many individuals; but then I pause for thought and mumble the familiar mantra ‘there but for the grace of whoever go I’
If the rake is increased from 3% to 4.5% and players play until they’re broke then by definition turnover will fall by a third, as it takes them less turnover to go broke. This is tautologous and conveys absolutely no information about players’ ‘sense of value’ vis-a-vis horse racing.
Stevecaution’s later post reinforced what I had tried to say – those players didn’t play to extinction, they walked away to another shop where the machines offered better value. If they do that at a 1.5%, what will they do at 14 or 15?
Also, FOBTs need zero skill, racing, if you want to have half a chance, needs high skills, at a return of 14 percentage points less.
As I said, there is zero chance that any significant turnover on racing will come from radical changes to FOBT limits.
What seem obvious in this highly charged argument is that people have different reasons for wanting FOBT bans/changes:
To reduce addiction
To punish greedy bookies
To push more money toward racingThe last won’t happen. The first two I have no argument with – they are strongly subjective and emotional viewpoints and won’t be changed by any length of debate.
But, if the sole focus is on helping racing’s finances, it is a complete no-brainer: a rough calculation suggests bookmakers’ annual profits in the UK from FOBTs is around £400m. Do people truly think that can be decimated and racing’s finances won’t suffer?
Object all you want from emotional/moral perspectives but don’t kid yourself that there is any business logic in it.
But, if the sole focus is on helping racing’s finances, it is a complete no-brainer: a rough calculation suggests bookmakers’ annual profits in the UK from FOBTs is around £400m. Do people truly think that can be decimated and racing’s finances won’t suffer?
Of course I think racing’s finances won’t suffer.
If gaming machines were banned/taxed/heavily restricted on Dec 31st 2012, the ‘will levy yield go up in 2013’ market would quite simply be no offers on yes and any price you like on no.
Think about it. If you’re Chairman of Willbrokes what do you do on Jan 1st? Issue an immediate profit warning claiming you’re doomed and that 400 million has gone never to return? Claim that your entire business model is now unviable? Close half your shops starting with the ones with highest racing turnover fist? Don’t think so.
Keep on keeping on Betlarge. The machines are a cancer on society, the fact they are not the only one does not mean they should therefore be accepted.
But, if the sole focus is on helping racing’s finances, it is a complete no-brainer: a rough calculation suggests bookmakers’ annual profits in the UK from FOBTs is around £400m. Do people truly think that can be decimated and racing’s finances won’t suffer?
Of course I think racing’s finances won’t suffer.
If gaming machines were banned/taxed/heavily restricted on Dec 31st 2012, the ‘will levy yield go up in 2013’ market would quite simply be no offers on yes and any price you like on no.
The question isn’t about Levy, it’s about racing’s finances which depend very heavily on media rights money which is based on the number of betting shops trading.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.