Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Yep, they’re back now, there were gone for a while for me, a few on BF forum had the problem too.
self-serving monoliths that serve up dismal products at appalling overrounds.
Mike
A better summation I’ve not seen.
It’s kind of like that. Racing is there to secure the requirement that
betting
not gaming is the Primary Gambling Activity, even though gaming could provide the majority of profit. Here are some indicators of what constitues PGA below. Basically they need to fill time with betting events. Having said that one place put up 5 betfair terminals along with 4 FOBT and no over the counter at all. The were not granted licence as they did not constitute "sufficient facilities for betting", then later won on appeal, (so independents could make a comeback on that basis, LOL.) PGA requirement is not even in the 2005 Act, it has been conjured up by the Gambling Commission partly to stop Adult Gaming Centres from getting B2 FOBT’s.
1.10 Indicators of betting as primary gambling activity:
• offer of established core products (including live event coverage and bet range)
• provision of information on products and events
• promotion of gambling opportunities and products
• actual or expected use made of betting facilities
• size of premises
• delivery of betting facilities.Guy puts in £1000, plays 1000 £1 spins on 1/1, walks out with £947 losing £53 or a tiny 5.3% of his dosh.
Guy puts in £53, plays 1000 £1 spins on 1/1, walks out with £0 losing £53 or a colossal 100% of his dosh.
So really, 85% of machine profit comes from just 25% of players, which has just reminded me that this is the Pareto Principle at work, lol.
Just read a quote from Devon layer Jack Bevan saying that his profit from cash in is 20%.
That would mean nationwide that £7.5BN cash is being put in to generate the £46BN of betting turnover yielding the £1.5BN of profits.
Does that make sense?
80% return is worse than horses for a guaranteed loss, LOL
So really the tiny 3% loss talk, is just as disingenuous as the other sides £46BN hyperbole talk.
Once again I am just grappling in the dark with some figs, no expert here, sorry.
MyRatings do not show for me on the race result page. ie the RATED column is empty.
They do show up for me on the career race summary page.
They also show on the rate race page ie where you enter the data.
This is what come off my dbase (flat only).
Again subject to my programming limitations, but it looks right.2001 H=2151 NH=2164
2002 H=2196 NH=2258
2003 H=2280 NH=2347
2004 H=2338 NH=2749
2005 H=2535 NH=2619
2006 H=3024 NH=2399
2007 H=3270 NH=2248
2008 H=3381 NH=2276
2009 H=3697 NH=2370
2010 H=3898 NH=2274
2011 H=3831 NH=2275
2012 H=3810 NH=2118
2013 H=4095 NH=2113Of course the figures are an average, but you have gone from a sensational sounding £615,000 annual turnover per player.
Opps, that is a mistake it ought to be £61,500. I did warn it was fag packet arithmetic.
jolly@1/2 SP CSFs for dead heat £26.32 & £18.52
jolly@3/10 SP CSFs for dead heat £31.71 & £22.21It’s true what you say, lengthening did the above. Whether that was the actual motive for the price change….
£1900 per annum works out at just over £5 per day. I am not sure what the problem is with that?
There will be a problem for some people in the sense that the distribution of losses wont be the same £1900 for all players in the group.
For some it’ll be less, others more.
From my fag packet arithmetic, it seems to me there is a hardcore minority doing the vast majority of the turnover. Whether that scale of repetitive behavior leads to problems that need addressing, is for the decision makers to decide. (On better evidence than mine hopefully.)
If a minority bet the vast majority of stakes, how are they sustaining it?
As I alluded to above in bold, some comfortably, others not so.
£1900 per annum works out at just over £5 per day. I am not sure what the problem is with that?
There will be a problem for some people in the sense that the distribution of losses wont be the same £1900 for all players in the group. For some it’ll be less, others more.
From my fag packet arithmetic, it seems to me there is a hardcore minority doing the vast majority of the turnover. Whether that scale of repetitive behavior leads to problems that need addressing, is for the decision makers to decide. (On better evidence than mine hopefully.)
£46bn another Fobt skewing of the figures.
With a 97% return to punters, it can take quite a long time to lose your initial stake. The 46bn figure comes from the constant turning over of that initial stake.
For the sake of simplicity – you put in a tenner, choose never to take your ‘winnings’ and keep playing. You turn over £200 in that session. You’ve lost a tenner. The Daily Mail says you’ve lost £200.
Not skewed £46BN is the turnover.
Goulden’s figs above suggested to me that 74% of players turned over 5.5BN for a loss of 165M.
Which suggests 26% of players are losing (1.4BN – 165M) = 1.23BN. ie 650,000 players are losing 1.23BN which is £1900 per annum each.
Approximately 14.2 million of the 63 million inhabitants of the UK are under 18.
Mike
If they meant 4% of adults are players that would just make it a bit worse still.
Forgetting any ‘social’ issues for a moment. The FOBT turnover figure just troubles me. It is £46,000,000,000, isn’t it?
Now I’ve read twice that 4% of population play these (seems highish to me but I’ll run with it) 4% of 63M people = 2.5M players.
Even if all players were identical that means each would be turning over £20,500 per annum. (i.e. they’d need to bet £82 <b>every</b> single day for 50 weeks). However…
Neil Goulden ex-Coral now ABB chairman says 74% play once a month or less. They play for 9 mins. Play £16 per spin. Lose £7.55 per 9 min session.
So if they lose £7.55 we can guesstimate at 3% loss, they turned over ~£250 in the 9 mins and had ~16 spins. So according to him 74% of players bet 12*250 = £3000 per annum. So if 2.5M bet on these machines and 74% of that 2.5M bet £3000 that amounts to £5.5BN of turnover.
That means the remaining 26% of players are churning £40BN. ie 650,000 players are betting £615K per annum each!
possibilites in order of probability <!– s:) –>
<!– s:) –>
1. my arithmetic is fecked
2. the stats are fecked
3. something else
4. money laundering is rife
5. it’s all true and aint life wonderfulJust seems, £46BN is one big number to explain away harmlessly whichever way you cut it.
<!– s:) –>