xbl
-
Posts
10,470 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by xbl
-
-
So basically, if you start winning stuff on a regular basis, then your account is limited...but if you start losing stuff on a regular basis, then no problem? I'm surprised this is legal to just bar people on what is effectively a whim.
0 -
I currently have had accounts closed by betvictor, sporting bet and Stan James, all of which were less than £500 up
Since this seems to have turned into a general gambling Q&A, I have a question. I've heard before of people who have had lots of accounts closed just because they are up money, is this a common thing? Are bookies allowed to do this, and what is the justification?
If people start winning a lot, then do they just get banned from bookies? This seems a little unfair if so!
0 -
A heroin addict is driven mentally by their addiction but it is mostly physical. They feel unwell when not on it hence the common junkie phrase of "I'm rattling...." It physically drives people to desperation and crime, now it has already been said in the thread that a lot of people have direct experience of how desperate someone addicted to gambling gets and that also leads to crime but I've yet to come across people begging for money in the street to satisfy their Fixed Odds fix.
If I can have one more go at breaking it down (apologies for repetition). In laymans terms (which is all I have knowledge of), something like smoking or heroin sends pleasure signals to the brain, just the same as fatty food, alcohol, and other physical things. Over time with some people, then they get dependent on it, wither it is because of circumstances in their lives, personality quirks, or simple escapism, because they need that good feeling. And to keep the rush and the good feeling going, then they have to keep taking it. This is the physical addiction you are speaking of.
Gambling appears to be no different. It sends pleasure signals to the brain, and to feed that fix, you need that excitement and the chance of winning. Neuro-imaging seems to show similar levels of brain activation. If you don't get that fix, then you can't function and you get the withdrawal symptoms like you do with other addictions. Furthermore, problem gamblers take out huge loans, conceal debts from their loved ones, sell their possessions to feed their habit, and beg, steal and lie to get more money to feed that addiction. Just like with something like a heroin addiction.
To tie that in with FOBTs (which I should emphasise, I don't have any experience of or strong opinions about), they are particularly designed to stimulate in this kind of way. An instant fix, no waiting, pleasure in the games, and significantly, lots of lowball payouts to encourage you and make people feel even better when they win, but ultimately, hugely costly.
ETA, if someone with an actual qualified knowledge can clarify any bollocks I might have talked in this post, or explain it in a better way, feel free!
0 -
Im not so sure about that. Shakes, withdrawal symptoms, elevated stress and heartbeat, angst. Ill have a look and see if google has a link, as this isn't my speciality.A lot of what you say is on point - I said that it's not as simple as just physical and mental - the two are tied in when you look at drink/drugs but not gambling.
If you lock a drug addict in a room and deprive them of their fix they become phycially unwell in the short term - ill. Their body physically requires the substance.
If you lock someone addicted to FOBTs in a room you'd be doing them the same favour of depriving them their "fix" however they would not suffer any physical effects. Psychological - yes.
Eta, it seems those symptoms exist:
http://www.dailystrength.org/c/Gambling_Addiction/forum/15927776-withdrawal
0 -
You just keep saying I'm "talking rubbish" but you need to expand on exactly why then.
Explain to me how a physical addiction to something like drugs, alcohol or ciggies is the same as a mental addiction to gambling. I'm not taking the piss I'd just be really interested to hear your points on it as you obviously feel strongly enough about it.
Im no expert here, but I can take a shot. Essentially, the effect of something like smoking is to take over the brain so that you can't function without it. It is shown in activations of regions of the brain in neuro imaging scans. Other addictions also show up as taking over the brain in exactly the same way. Including gambling I believe.
So your brain is unable to function without its "fix" as the addiction has control over brain activation. It needs its fix to function. It doesn't matter if that fix is nicotine or a bet on something, its a similar effect.
Its exactly the same as smoking. All addictions are physical and all addictions are mental.
0 -
To be honest, Im not sure you understand addiction. The effect of being addicted to a substance is just like being addicted to something intangible.Jesus.
Read this slowly and let is sink in.
A human being gets physically addicted to things like crack cocaine. They do not get physically addicted to FOBTS.
I know where you are coming from - the mental part of addiction is probably the strongest part of it - as someone who smokes but would like to stop I know it is the physical side of the addiction to nicotine that keeps me smoking as in my head I know I should stop but I am physically addicted to nicotine now.
You cannot get physically addicted to a gambling machine. It is not possible.
So while I agree that the mental "in your head" part of an addiction is the driving force comparing a fixed odds betting terminal with a substance you become physically addicted to is not a good comparison.
It still stimulates your brain the same way and it is just as hard to kick, as far as I know. I'm no expert on this, so I can't claim any deep knowledge here though. However, with any physical addiction, the biggest issue is mental, not physical.
So I don't see a gambling addiction as any less addictive or serious than (say) smoking, just because you can't physically see what you are doing to your body.
0 -
I don't know if its cool to post buzzfeed links on here, but this made me laugh so much!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/the-dumbest-things-that-have-ever-happened
0 -
I love Arcade Fire (I got hooked on Power Out when it was released), but I didn't really enjoy Reflektor all that much (just listened to it there). Seems a bit long and self indulgent tbh. Good start, good end, but doesn't really go anywhere in the middle. Just my views though! I've only been to see them once, and my god they were good.
I'm sure most of you will have seen this btw, but in case anyone hasn't here is Wake Up, feat. David Bowie:
0 -
I tend to try not to make the explicit like between degree and job, people do that all too often, and I think people should go to uni to learn about something that interests them rather than to get a job. So I'm loathe to criticise on that basis.
I don't know enough about the research methods used in sociology to comment on the degree of empirical based study, but at an undergrad level, I see no harm in wanting to learn some theory about people. I imagine many people take psychology for the same reasons.
As far as Im concerned, if people are studying something they think is interesting, and helps them develop in terms of knowledge and learning, then I don't see the harm!
No, my criticism is saved for the people doing the above type of subjects who don't find it interesting and are pointlessly grinding through it doing the absolute minimum. What is the point of doing it at all?
0 -
Sociology is a clown-college subject of the third (class) degree.
If its something that people find interesting to study, whats the harm?
0 -
I'd have my doubts that they were all dutifully checking the kids every half hour.
There were a number of contrasting witness statements to that I believe. They also told some untruths about how much wine they drank too. Still, it'll provide a bit of attention and get some money to the "Where's Maddy?" fund. I gather they're also bringing out a childrens book of the same name. Sneak Preview:
0 -
Nope - you decided I was saying that regretting a crime should mean you should get away with it !
What I was actually saying was that leaving your kids alone is probably more than punished by having one of them abducted.
Do you think a spell in the chokey will teach them a lesson ?
In fairness to the mccanns, they should be allowed a bit of leeway. Anyone can make a mistake. Perhaps a 3 strikes scheme?
0 -
Police have issued a photofit.
Thats what happens when he's a wafer too long.
0 -
While I do think they deserve the jail, I'm not exactly sure what lesson that will teach the McCanns that they haven't already learned.
At least they'll have some material for their next book.
0 -
Classy. Just underlines how sincere your concern for the wellbeing of children really is. You're not just using a child abduction as an excuse to posture at all.
Sounds exactly what you are doing. You are defending the indefensible.
0 -
C
Just C? As in not C++, C# or Objective C? I'm not familiar with those languages I'm afraid, otherwise I was going to point you to some resources. Sorry I couldn't help!
0 -
Cheers for the replies. It just seems impossible to keep up and because I've never done anything like it before the terms 'head' and 'brick wall' come to mind. It's been affecting my other subjects because I'm worrying like f*** because I don't have a clue about it. Meeting my personal tutor today to see if theres anything he can do, but really don't see a way out. Fucking hell.
What programming language are you using?
0 -
Sounds like a dick. But fair play to him really
No, not fair play to him really. Blatant fraud taking money away from those that need it. A student I know got hit with a whole load of unexpected circumstances in one go, and as a result, couldn't cover their rent for a couple of months. He got hardship funding to cover that, which is what it should be for, not so that some rich kid can fiddle the system.
0 -
I saw Shappi Khorsandi a few years ago and she was excellent. Then again, whenever I've seen her televised since then she seems to only really have one routine now.
I'd like to go and see her show sometime, she's one of the few female comedians that makes me laugh. Also, she's hot.
0 -
Well, that's to be expected - no-one's going to have universal appeal, so there will be someone who says they're unfunny.
You know what I mean though, there is a difference between not finding someone funny, and finding them to be utterly shit atrocious holocausts of human beings!
0 -
I generally agree with you on this kind of stuff, but Russell Howard is really, really unfunny.
I'm not a fan of his tv work, but I have to say, I was dragged along to see him live, and he was a lot better than I expected him to be. Not really my cup of tea, but not bad.
Kevin Bridges, Frankie Boyle and Stewart Francis are quite funny.
Bet you all of the above will be described as atrocious, unfunny, utterly shit, etc. by someone.
0 -
The good thing about p&b is that every comedian is utterly shit. The only popular ones are the ones that are never on tv and hard to actually see.
0 -
Not for a couple of years now. My sister's there, 4th year.
What were you thinking? You KNOW what way this is going to go now!
0 -
What do you teach?
Computing. You know, the cool subject.
0
Liverpool City Council Ban FOBTs In Betting Shops
in The General Nonsense Forum
Posted
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.