Liverpool City Council Ban FOBTs In Betting Shops

[Cardinal Richelieu]

They can do what they like. I've been barred from dozens of pubs (and know people who have banned from every Wetherspoons in the country) simply for winning out of fruit machines. Nothing illegal, just exploiting flaws etc in the programming. Same with bookies.. if they suspect you have any inside knowledge or that you are analysing the market too much, they'll shut up shop and there's not much you can do about it (except get a mate to put the bet on obviously).

[xbl]

But, and I'm totally not disagreeing with anyone here, just enhancing my own knowledge, aren't you expected to analyse the market and make an educated decision, which the bookmakers take account of by offering short odds for obvious favourites?

As everyone can probably tell, I'm not really a gambler or familiar with bookies.

[mid-table]

But, and I'm totally not disagreeing with anyone here, just enhancing my own knowledge, aren't you expected to analyse the market and make an educated decision, which the bookmakers take account of by offering short odds for obvious favourites?

As everyone can probably tell, I'm not really a gambler or familiar with bookies.

I don't know about 'expected', but yes, relatively intelligent people who know what they are doing would do that. But the bookies want people who don't do that, take bad prices (what I mean by that is if I'm offering 4/1 and the bookie next door offers 6/1, the people who bet with me are the mugs who will lose money over time) and put on bets without any thought put into them (see the first few posts of the current midweek thread in the gambling forum).

[vikingTON]

All forms of gambling are highly addictive to a certain type of person, fobt's are highly addictive to plenty who've happily gambled trouble free for decades.

Even the shrillest figures claim that FOBT are linked to problem, addictive gambling in around 10% of users. This leaves 90% - the vast majority - encountering no such issues.

Why should their 'enjoyment' - idiotic, wasteful or otherwise - be restricted on account of a minority addiction problem that can be tackled through support mechanisms rather than legislation. in a free society?

[Tommy Nooka]

Say those figures are true 10% of users have a problem and 90% don’t however having worked in a bookies for a couple of years not long after these machines were introduced I’d say the 10% with a problem are playing the machines 90% of the time (maybe an exaggeration but you get the idea). Bookies are open much longer hours now solely down to these machines and I think they are now open 365 days a year and 12+ hours a day (when I worked there they closed on Good Friday and Xmas day).

There was one guy in particular who owned a shop in Rutherglen arcade, he was in every day putting hundreds of pounds into those machines, occasionally he’d get a winner but more often than not he was well down. Eventually he just stopped coming in and we subsequently found out he’d done a runner and abandoned the shop. It probably wasn’t the only reason his shop went under but I imagine Ladbrokes were the beneficiary of most of the shops takings. FOBT’s are awful things, it’s no wonder bookies love them as it’s a guaranteed win for them.

[mid-table]

And this is why I am in favour of restricting the stakes rather than an all-out ban.

The majority of people who do not display compulsive traits (the most recent research now suggests 13% of players display compulsive traits, as referenced in the responses to the government triennial review), and are able to play the machines recreationally are betting much lower stakes. They would not necessarily be effected by a change to the maximum stake, however it would protect the people who, although not exclusively, are more often than not gambling higher stakes.

Part of the problem is that most people in the know are aware that the problem gamblers are spending most of the time on the machines, and are by and large staking the most money per spin, but the evidence of this is all owned by the bookmakers, who are obviously reluctant to share it.

Edited November 13, 2013 by mid-table

[54_and_counting]

Even the shrillest figures claim that FOBT are linked to problem, addictive gambling in around 10% of users. This leaves 90% - the vast majority - encountering no such issues.

Why should their 'enjoyment' - idiotic, wasteful or otherwise - be restricted on account of a minority addiction problem that can be tackled through support mechanisms rather than legislation. in a free society?

Support mechanisms are probably too late tbh, if you've gambled your house, car and then family away before getting help then its pretty much useless

[ayrmad]

Support mechanisms are probably too late tbh, if you've gambled your house, car and then family away before getting help then its pretty much useless

Yep, I was none too pleased when GA hid behind their guidelines rather than have input into the 2005 legislation.

[peleus]

So guys, I a bookie restricts a bet and they want a minimum, are we suppose to report them?

[ayrmad]

So guys, I a bookie restricts a bet and they want a minimum, are we suppose to report them?

Once I understand your post I'll reply to it.

[DarkBlue62]

Support mechanisms are probably too late tbh, if you've gambled your house, car and then family away before getting help then its pretty much useless

Not true. It can stop you from killing yourself and help you start again without gambling. Life without gambling is a wonderful thing when you are a compulsive gambler.

[mid-table]

Not true. It can stop you from killing yourself and help you start again without gambling. Life without gambling is a wonderful thing when you are a compulsive gambler.

That may be, but I would much rather that people weren't set up to fail and didn't have to go through the crap to get to that stage. Edited November 19, 2013 by mid-table

[ayrmad]

Not true. It can stop you from killing yourself and help you start again without gambling. Life without gambling is a wonderful thing when you are a compulsive gambler.

In all honesty my life was perfect when I was punting, I never had a care in the world when I was in action..

[Cardinal Richelieu]

In all honesty my life was perfect when I was punting, I never had a care in the world when I was in action..

Surely that's like any drug? Something to occupy the mind and the moment.

[ayrmad]

Surely that's like any drug? Something to occupy the mind and the moment.

Never been a drug user but probably similar.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

Have you ever came across any flaws in the FOBTs?

I posted a couple a while back, but they've long since been ironed out. Unless you know people in the industry, you're never going to gain any advantage on these machines.

Edit: I don't know anyone in the industry.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Cardinal Richelieu

[ayrmad]

They can do what they like. I've been barred from dozens of pubs (and know people who have banned from every Wetherspoons in the country) simply for winning out of fruit machines. Nothing illegal, just exploiting flaws etc in the programming. Same with bookies.. if they suspect you have any inside knowledge or that you are analysing the market too much, they'll shut up shop and there's not much you can do about it (except get a mate to put the bet on obviously).

I once had £200 at 5/2 restricted by Fearless Freddie at Ayr races, a Roger Whittaker trained 2 year old if my memories correct.

6 figure bets ended up being acceptable to Freddie.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

And even if you do, you still won't.

You're probably right. These things are so tightly audited and monitored nowadays that it would be very hard to get away with. But it was certainly possible in the early days. I've no idea whether potentially lucrative bugs were added on purpose (with a view to selling the information on) or accidentally. Probably a mixture of both.

What I do know is that fruit machine manufacturers employ people with degrees in psychology, and in particular, addiction. And presumably, it's not to make their products less addictive.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

Flashing lights, 2 out of 3 on win line the other just above or below, 3 nudges when you need 4 for the jackpot, all near misses to make you think the jackpot is due.

Do you believe the FOBTs are random?

Aye, all the above and more. Ever notice how wee kids in pubs always love to go and press buttons on the puggy cos of its colourful flashing lights? They might be too young to play them now, but it's planting a seed for later on in life.

Re: FOBTs and randomness. Depends which games you mean but essentially yes. I've argued long and hard about this on gambling forums in the past, but roulette is a tried-and-tested money spinner in real life, so there'd be no need to risk your business on fixing it. The payout of roulette might be high (i.e. 98%), but its addictive nature means many people will just keep playing their winnings till its all gone. If there was some sort of payout / fixing of the outcome, I'm sure we would have heard something by now from some disgruntled ex-employee. The only arguments that it is fixed seem to be "I saw 15 reds in a row when I had black every time" (which happens in real-life but many people will never have played roulette in a casino, and it's a lot slower to play) or my favourite "If you press SPIN on two machines at the same time, the same number comes up" (this is because machines send a request for a number to a server which randomly generates a number every second, therefore anyone pressing SPIN at that moment will get the same number).

For puggies on FOBTs it's a bit more complicated. They claim a 90% payout but that they are also random. This is also true. Say the machine has 1,000,000 possible outcomes.... half of them will be losing combos, most of the rest will be small wins, while there will be say 10 big wins. Which one you get is random. However, if you get a long series of losing combos, the machine can afford to pay out more. Therefore, the ratio of wins / big wins to the total number of outcomes is increased, but it is still random which you get. If you get a big win and the machine needs to recoup money, then the ratio of wins / big wins to the total number of outcomes is reduced, but it is still possible (but very unlikely) to get a big win. Therefore, over a long period of time, the payout of the machine will equal 90%, but each individual spin is still random.

[mid-table]

Do you believe the FOBTs are random?

Yes. Unequivocally, absolutely yes.

The games being referred to on FOBTs are B2 and B3 games under the Gambling Act 2005. They are random.

You are confusing them with old school fruit machines, which are generally category C or D machines. These are only pseudorandom. I covered all of this off earlier in the topic.

I agree with the vast majority of what the post directly above says.