Liverpool City Council Ban FOBTs In Betting Shops

[Fife Journeyman]

I enjoy a bet on football, racing, dogs and most sports but only what i can afford. i donr put a penny in these machines or bet cartoon racing as its all based on luck.

when im doing sports betting its my own judgement. yes i put a lottery ticket on but if im gonna b lucky id will be for a million rather than a 10-1 shot at steepledowns.

if i had a pound in my pocket id rather put on 4 draws or a rev forecast than stick on a machine.

seeing people with a balance of £800 then 20 minutes later walking out skint saddens me.

people who play these will never win

if they do collect chanves are they pop inyo the next bookies with the mentality of i will see what i can ein from £20 and before you know it its gone.

i agree with a maximum allowed per spin of £2-£5

[vikingTON]

I think it's fantastic news. I'm all for people having a flutter if they want to, but these machines are designed to cause addiction, not a one-off punt on a horse or a football match

Last I checked there's an entire sector of the economy, with huge marketing budgets, stores, online apps etc. to ensure a "one-off punt on a horse" becomes at the very least a regular pursuit.

Where, precisely, should a line be drawn?

There's a distintion between vices that can be enjoyed by most people in moderation and things which can't.

It's why a drug like alcohol is permitted but crack cocaine is not.

You wrongly assume that the government adopts a rational framework for legislating potentially harmful or addictive substances/behaviour. All evidence points to the opposite.

There is absolutely no reason why FOBT machines can't be 'enjoyed in moderation' by the vast majority of users.

[ICTChris]

If FOBT are the "crack cocaine of gambling" is crack cocaine the "crack cocaine" of drugs?

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

You wrongly assume that the government adopts a rational framework for legislating potentially harmful or addictive substances/behaviour.

I absolutely do not assume that. I'm sure if crack cocaine had a large lobbying presence behind it, we'd see a legalised version of it in some form.

Most of us are talking about what we think should be illegal or regulated in terms of potentially dangerous products/services. I happen to think that if it's possible to limit how much people sling into these things, that should happen. I don't expect the government to agree with me though.

[sparky88]

Not quite:

Bookies would tend to price a two outcome event, such as a coin toss (for example) at around 5/6 for both heads and tells. This equates to decimal odds of 1.83 with a 109% book, ie the bookie has a 9% margin. Value betting it is not.

You'll see similar odds on penalty shoot-ours and the like.

Best example of this recently was the sex of William and Kate's baby, it was indeed 5/6 both outcomes.

[vikingTON]

I absolutely do not assume that. I'm sure if crack cocaine had a large lobbying presence behind it, we'd see a legalised version of it in some form.

Then the reason why crack cocaine is legislated against, while alcohol is legal and taxed, is due to lobbying presence (and in the case of alcohol, also tradition), rather than any rational assessment of addictiveness or harm whatsoever. This is not what you claimed earlier.

Meanwhile, the same case of vested interests and tradition leaves betting on football and horses as just a wee harmless punt, while FOBT are the spawn of Satan.

Edited November 7, 2013 by vikingTON

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Then the reason why crack cocaine is legislated against, while alcohol is legal and taxed, is due to lobbying presence (and in the case of alcohol, also tradition), rather than any rational assessment of addictiveness or harm whatsoever. This is not what you claimed earlier.

I know, just said that five minutes ago.

I didn't claim otherwise earlier. Politicians will implement whatever they can reastically enforce on the electorate whilst keeping lobbyists happy and lining their pockets. The amount of people who enjoy alcohol without it ruining their lives dictates that treating it like crack cocaine won't happen - regardless of any future lobbying activity.

Meanwhile, the same case of vested interests and tradition leaves betting on football and horses as just a wee harmless punt, while FOBT are the spawn of Satan.

No need to get all hyperbolic about it. I can see why you'd see betting on football in similar fashion to FOBTs, seeing as you're possibly the worst selector of football bets I've ever seen but Liverpool Council and myself just don't agree.

Edited November 7, 2013 by SodjesSixteenIncher

[T_S_A_R]

Everyone up for banning casinos then too? Same machines in there but with the added bonus of a bar and 24 hour licenses.

I've no idea why anyone would go to a casino to play a fixed odds machine. Also it's easier to either not join a casino or get yourself excluded from them than it is to get excluded from multiple bookies that are open all day to all.

[shawfield shed boy]

Fantastic news , Government must be raging considering the cut they get from these machines

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Fact 1 - Bookmakers profits are the result of people losing money gambling.

Fact 2 - Betting shops have clustered - particularly in deprived communities - because of the four FOBT per shop rule

Fact 3 - FOBTs make more than the sum total of sports gambling.

What do those three facts in conjunction tell you? I'm not saying people's anecdotal arguments about what 'the real problem is' aren't super fascinating they are mostly bollocks.

Enjoy responsibly my arse.

('Facts' provided by media coverage of this topic in recent years. I haven't read any Willy Hills annual reports.)

[ayrmad]

Was going to post this in the gambling forum, but I figure that more people would read it on here.

Liverpool City Council have voted to ban FOBTs in betting shops, as people are capable of losing hundreds of pounds within a few minutes.

I think it's fantastic news. I'm all for people having a flutter if they want to, but these machines are designed to cause addiction, not a one-off punt on a horse or a football match - and in 20 years we'll look back at the amount of lives and families that have been ripped apart by problem gambling and wonder how successive governments made it so easy to do.

Hopefully the next stop is to limit the over-proliferation of gambling adverts (games and sports) on television.

Fantastic, hopefully the rest follow.

Not against gambling but these things are just leading to an over provision of betting shops.

Edited November 7, 2013 by ayrmad

[vikingTON]

Fact 2 - Betting shops have clustered - particularly in deprived communities - because of the four FOBT per shop rule

Evidence to show causation again please.

[ForeverSinging]

IMO the government can do something about these issues in society and should. We quibble away about the theoretical rights and wrongs of government intervention etc. and the reality remains that up and down the country people in deprived areas are becoming addicted and having their lives ruined.

[Adam]

 

Evidence to show causation again please.

I'm sure someone posted a link to the Dispatches documentary that was on telly a year or so ago. Fairly certain they highlighted the introduction of new legislation, allowing four FOBTs as a reason for more shops opening in more deprived areas.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Evidence to show causation again please.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/04/fixed-odds-betting-terminals-poorest-communities

"currently, bookmakers are limited to four machines per shop. The machines are hugely lucrative, bringing in on average £900 a week in profits, so bookmakers have bypassed the restriction by opening more branches in high streets "clustering" in poorer areas."

You ought to get on to whoever wrote that report and let them know FOBTs ain't no biggie.

Edited November 7, 2013 by SodjesSixteenIncher

[ayrmad]

So fact 1 and fact 3 tell me that betting patterns have changed in recent years and the industry has advanced to other methods of gambling. Fact 2 is not really a fact either, unless you happen to be high up in a bookmaking chain and know the ins and outs of their strategic decisions. What's your point here anyway?

The big bookies weren't allowed to open up too many in close proximity to each other, instead they shut down a wee shitty one in order to use the license for 1 in a better location.

Edited November 7, 2013 by ayrmad

[vikingTON]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/04/fixed-odds-betting-terminals-poorest-communities

So not actually a 'Fact' then, but an unproven argument put forward by politicians like Diane Abbot and a report compiled by an organisation with a clear dog in the fight. A claim contrary to the conclusions of the relevant select committee.

[ayrmad]

So not actually a 'Fact' then, but an unproven argument put forward by politicians like Diane Abbot and a report compiled by an organisation with a clear dog in the fight. A claim contrary to the conclusions of the relevant select committee.

And they don't have a dog in the fight.

[mid-table]

So fact 1 and fact 3 tell me that betting patterns have changed in recent years and the industry has advanced to other methods of gambling. Fact 2 is not really a fact either, unless you happen to be high up in a bookmaking chain and know the ins and outs of their strategic decisions. What's your point here anyway?

If fact 1 indicates that betting patterns have changed, then how did bookmakers make a profit previously? From selling tea and coffee? The big 3 have just gone from making £10-£15M a year in 1999 to making £200-250M a year in 2012.

Fact 2 is absolutely a fact, despite some of the naysayers on here. The evidence is overwhelming. I can't be arsed producing a report demonstrating the statistical proof.

[vikingTON]

And they don't have a dog in the fight.

Of course they do, but only a complete and utter moron would claim that because both sides are dubious, the one you sympathise with most therefore becomes 'fact'.

Which neatly summarises your contribution to the thread so far.