(Australia) Limit pokie (slots) bets to $1 - Report

[paulyt]

GAMBLERS should be restricted to maximum bets of $1 per play on the pokies, the Productivity Commission's draft report on problem gambling recommends.

It is one of a raft of harm minimisation measures, including limiting access to ATMs at clubs, in the report released today.

Australians spend about $18 billion a year gambling, including $12 billion on pokies, the report found.

About 15 per cent of Australians gamble regularly, and problem gamblers make up about 10 per cent of those.

But the share of money that problem gamblers feed into the pokies accounts for around 40 per cent of $12 billion figure.

The commission said while progress on problem gambling had been made over the past decade, governments could do more to make gaming machines safer.

It recommends a limit of $1 per bet on all pokies, to limit the amount people can lose each hour to $120, and a $20 cash limit that a person can put into a poker machine at any given time.

It calls for a universal "opt-out" system that allows people to set the amount of money and time they spend gambling.

Cash machines located near pokie machines should only be able to distribute a maximum of $200 per card per day and all prize money should be paid in cheques not cash, the report says.

The commission wants the restrictions in place by 2016.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...48-952,00.html


The current max bet on a pokie in Australia is $5 on a 1c per line pokie. A few of the $1 pr line pokies have a max bet of $9.

I had a look at the 2006 census date and there is roughly 14-15 million adults in Australia. Obviously not all of them gamble but if they did to get a figure of $18billion that's only just over $1000 each per year. That doesn't seem like a huge figure to me.

p.s Posted in the Asian section because there wasn't really anywhere else to put it.

[mattsgame]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...48-952,00.html


The current max bet on a pokie in Australia is $5 on a 1c per line pokie. A few of the $1 pr line pokies have a max bet of $9.

I had a look at the 2006 census date and there is roughly 14-15 million adults in Australia. Obviously not all of them gamble but if they did to get a figure of $18billion that's only just over $1000 each per year. That doesn't seem like a huge figure to me.

p.s Posted in the Asian section because there wasn't really anywhere else to put it.

a poker machine must not exceed $10 as a maximum bet (of course u wont reach this on a 1c machine.) and the most one is allowed to win/cashout is $10,000 from 1 machine.

Now i dunno how this would work, Will they have to scrap the $1 machines and then theres those progressive jackpots that usually hit the feature the more u bet hyperlink/rapidfire/jetsetter/bluediamond. Which will mean we will either see way lower jackpots or way tighter machines (tight as there legally allowed to) There wont be much incentive to play. They already bought in the check for over $1000 wins. (used to be $1500) wich i found quite crappy as most jackpots start at this amount.

could someone from another country legislation tell me what the rules are in your B&M?

Oh well online casino's are looking better and better everyday for me. That is one thing this government wont stop!.

Don't get me wrong i hate seeing gambling problems.It is quite sad and effects alot of people.

[JHV]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...48-952,00.html


The current max bet on a pokie in Australia is $5 on a 1c per line pokie. A few of the $1 pr line pokies have a max bet of $9.

I had a look at the 2006 census date and there is roughly 14-15 million adults in Australia. Obviously not all of them gamble but if they did to get a figure of $18billion that's only just over $1000 each per year. That doesn't seem like a huge figure to me.

p.s Posted in the Asian section because there wasn't really anywhere else to put it.

As we all know, it's a massive issue in Australia that threatened to spin out of control. I mean, The Whitlams recorded a hit single "Blow Up The Pokies" many years ago now....and it's just been getting worse and worse.

The state governments were too reliant on the taxes generated by the industry (we have more pokies per capita than any country in the world) - and the well-funded (duh) clubs and associations who developed a lot of political power derived, in part, from generating of all that revenue...were / are none too keen to see that money stop flooding in.

I think we're reaching the breaking point now, where people can't afford to ignore it any longer. If you have any experience with a pokies tavern or a land-based casino, you'll see why there has been screaming cries for the government to step in and act. The stories are too sad and depressing to describe in much detail - but I'm sure you probably know what I'm talking about.

But what the real problem is imo...is the 13%-17% HA the government allows the manufacturers to set the machines at. 0.5% HA is brutal if you do substantial volume, 2% is ruthless, 5% is lighting money on fire, 13-17%? I don't have the adjectives to describe how insanely fast problem gamblers get 'raped' there (apology if that word is inappropriate - but it seems to best fit the situation).

I don't like to see governments regulate morality (as a general rule), but in this spot, I really have to agree. But what I'd prefer to see is much heavier taxes on the pokies, making them less like licenses to print money for the clubs and taverns and more of a tricky gamble for the club operators due to vastly lower ROI. In addition, they should enact legislation limiting the max HA for each slot to be something like 2-3%. I'm not 100% on these figures, but I remember talking to the Benowa Tavern manager one night on the Gold Coast, and I'm pretty sure he was saying the most popular machines take in up to $30,000 in a weekend. A single machine! sigh.

Also, they should force every operator to literally BILLBOARD their gaming rooms with really simple explanations of the truth about their gambling expectation. Simply putting fine print HA %'s in a hidden brochure somewhere or having some flyers lying around with "Do you have a gambling problem? Call xxxxxxx" - is simply not acceptable.

The vast majority (where 'vast' = 99.9%+) of pokies gamblers have no clean understanding of how House Advantage works. They would not be able to even comprehend the genuine brutality of a 17% HA machine.

Education is the key I think. And where education fails, restrictions and regulations like this are called for. Or higher taxes to tax the machines into extinction - i.e. they're not regulating morality, just making it harder for problem gamblers to self-destruct - and that's appropriate government intervention, in my opinion.

[mattsgame]

As we all know, it's a massive issue in Australia that threatened to spin out of control. I mean, The Whitlams recorded a hit single "Blow Up The Pokies" many years ago now....and it's just been getting worse and worse.

The state governments were too reliant on the taxes generated by the industry (we have more pokies per capita than any country in the world) - and the well-funded (duh) clubs and associations who developed a lot of political power derived, in part, from generating of all that revenue...were / are none too keen to see that money stop flooding in.

I think we're reaching the breaking point now, where people can't afford to ignore it any longer. If you have any experience with a pokies tavern or a land-based casino, you'll see why there has been screaming cries for the government to step in and act. The stories are too sad and depressing to describe in much detail - but I'm sure you probably know what I'm talking about.

But what the real problem is imo...is the 13%-17% HA the government allows the manufacturers to set the machines at. 0.5% HA is brutal if you do substantial volume, 2% is ruthless, 5% is lighting money on fire, 13-17%? I don't have the adjectives to describe how insanely fast problem gamblers get 'raped' there (apology if that word is inappropriate - but it seems to best fit the situation).

I don't like to see governments regulate morality (as a general rule), but in this spot, I really have to agree. But what I'd prefer to see is much heavier taxes on the pokies, making them less like licenses to print money for the clubs and taverns and more of a tricky gamble for the club operators due to vastly lower ROI. In addition, they should enact legislation limiting the max HA for each slot to be something like 2-3%. I'm not 100% on these figures, but I remember talking to the Benowa Tavern manager one night on the Gold Coast, and I'm pretty sure he was saying the most popular machines take in up to $30,000 in a weekend. A single machine! sigh.

Also, they should force every operator to literally BILLBOARD their gaming rooms with really simple explanations of the truth about their gambling expectation. Simply putting fine print HA %'s in a hidden brochure somewhere or having some flyers lying around with "Do you have a gambling problem? Call xxxxxxx" - is simply not acceptable.

The vast majority (where 'vast' = 99.9%+) of pokies gamblers have no clean understanding of how House Advantage works. They would not be able to even comprehend the genuine brutality of a 17% HA machine.

Education is the key I think. And where education fails, restrictions and regulations like this are called for. Or higher taxes to tax the machines into extinction - i.e. they're not regulating morality, just making it harder for problem gamblers to self-destruct - and that's appropriate government intervention, in my opinion.

Great reply/post. I agree with you 100% The HA is a load of hogwash. In my local tavern when ever i walk in there is someone playing the lowest % payout machine (highest ha) why? because of course the tavern is going to set the most popular machine to the lowest payout in this case cleopatra. and mind you they have 3 of these in which i stay well away from. on average they are all set between 85% - 97% thats a huge difference in payout % over time. And of course u also have jackpot machines which have the worst payout % and everyone plays hoping to hit that one jackpot. The only jackpot machines i've seen that have a decent payout % are the jetsetters but still there set at 96%.They should all be regulated to the same payout % around 97%. Most of the ederly or the not so informed people just don't know how to check the payout %. The government is just too greedy and wont do crap about it. look at mr brumby here in vic allowing Crown casino to have extra tables if they agree to a higher tax rate!!!

Cheers matt.

[vinylweatherman]

Here in the UK, Fruit Machines are legally allowed to go as low as 70% RTP, (or 30% HA if you prefer). They can be located almost anywhere, provided they are made available to over 18s, with some way to continually police this. This type of machine is in pubs and motorway service stations.
The max bet has been increased to £1, but the jackpot is limited to a lowly £70. This gives a brutal HA, but with low variance. These machines are "compensated", not random, and some have pre-programmed sequences of enhanced winning potential, triggers for which vary.
Another class is £1 fixed bet, and are similar to Aussie Pokies, having been designed in a similar style. The rules have been tightened on these recently, as before they had stakes varying from 50p to £2. The RTP on these is around 90% (I've seen 88% on one). The max jackpot is £500. These also feature at motorway services.

There are "club" machines that can offer higher jackpots, but these can only be sited in clubs and casinos, not pubs and motorway service areas.

Seaside resorts have now made most of their machines 2p, 5p or 10p play, with jackpots up to £8. Why? BECAUSE CHILDREN CAN LEGALLY PLAY THEM! The laws forced ALL machines with larger jackpots into "18s and over" areas. The problem is that some children live at the seaside, so have these low stake machines available all the time, rather than on their 1 or 2 week summer break, which was the traditional way most children got exposed to these games. Children are SUPPOSED to be supervised by the parent or guardian who took them to the seaside, but there is no way a few staff can enforce this, except perhaps for the well known local kids - but even then, do they bother?

The UK could possibly head into Aussie style problems if they get it wrong, because after years of tight regulation of Fruit Machines, the last decade or so has seen a mad scramble to increase maximum stakes and jackpots by the operators. £1 a spin is 4x as efficient at losing money than 25p a spin, and the play speed is MUCH FASTER on the new breed of £500 "pokie" style machines.

[Simmo!]

The whole thing is a bit catch-22. You can see why they want to try and reduce max bets, keep it sensible etc, but it will ultimately turn people away from the land-based machines into online casinos with bigger bets and higher percentage machines.

And if memory serves, Australia don't allow Aus companies to accept Aus residents for online gambling either so it is taking money out of the local economy.

Something, sometime will have to give.

[vinylweatherman]

The whole thing is a bit catch-22. You can see why they want to try and reduce max bets, keep it sensible etc, but it will ultimately turn people away from the land-based machines into online casinos with bigger bets and higher percentage machines.

And if memory serves, Australia don't allow Aus companies to accept Aus residents for online gambling either so it is taking money out of the local economy.

Something, sometime will have to give.

Well, I did a little experiment the other week. I stopped off at Winchester services, and played all the machines at MINIMUM stake of 25p, instead of the maximum £1. The higher stakes are supposed to increase your chances, but I did VERY well on 25p stakes, far better than my usual policy of going for the best odds & most enhanced game.

One factor seems to be that when offered, say, £4 on a 25p stake, I am more inclined to accept it as a "good win" rather than play on for more. £4 on a £1 stake is a mere 4x bet, and does not even cover the interval between features, so I usually play on.
On 25p, I was getting regular wins between £3 and £7, and quickly went ahead due to betting only 25p, and accepting these wins more readily.
£1 might be good for forcing out the £70 jackpot, but seems less effective when playing just to get ahead a little.

I will have to experiment a little more.

[mattsgame]

The whole thing is a bit catch-22. You can see why they want to try and reduce max bets, keep it sensible etc, but it will ultimately turn people away from the land-based machines into online casinos with bigger bets and higher percentage machines.

And if memory serves, Australia don't allow Aus companies to accept Aus residents for online gambling either so it is taking money out of the local economy.

Something, sometime will have to give.

Well, I did a little experiment the other week. I stopped off at Winchester services, and played all the machines at MINIMUM stake of 25p, instead of the maximum £1. The higher stakes are supposed to increase your chances, but I did VERY well on 25p stakes, far better than my usual policy of going for the best odds & most enhanced game.

One factor seems to be that when offered, say, £4 on a 25p stake, I am more inclined to accept it as a "good win" rather than play on for more. £4 on a £1 stake is a mere 4x bet, and does not even cover the interval between features, so I usually play on.
On 25p, I was getting regular wins between £3 and £7, and quickly went ahead due to betting only 25p, and accepting these wins more readily.
£1 might be good for forcing out the £70 jackpot, but seems less effective when playing just to get ahead a little.

I will have to experiment a little more.

First off to simmo. you are correct in what you say. australian online based casino's cannot accept any australian players. Although to my knowledge there was only ever 1 any way and this was run out of darwin ( northern territory) which do not have as strict rules and regulations and most states. (im sure jhv will correct me if im wrong) and for me online is already the go along with alot of other australians for many reasons.

to VWM

most jackpot machines in australia work like this.The more u bet the better your chance of winning one. how? e.g Most of the stand alone jackpot machines require u to get 5 of a kind with a special symbol on the 5th reel of the five of a kind. The more u bet the more u see these symbols. an example of this is jetsetter london (as i mentioned above in another post) wich u can see here.[URL="http://www.igt.com.au/games/extra-chance-jetsetter-london.aspx"[/URL]

My local club has 2 of these at which i pay quite a bit when im down there because of there RTP and jackpots. These range form a bet of 0.50c to $10.
Now when betting 50c you will hardly see a jackpot symbol during the feature on the 5th reel. But you bet $10 and u will see the 5th reel is almost full of them.

i guess im just wondering what they will do with these machines. To me there the best games available and if its made $1 max which is 1/10th of the max bet now then we will see way smaller jackpots (the machine above i have seen over $11,000) There wont be any insentive to play.



To many clubs , sporting teams ,Rsl's , communities and not mention our government now reily on the income from these machines as well, so how will our government compensate these people?

hope i made sense think im just blabbering now

Cheers matt.

[paulyt]

Most clubs may rely on them as you say but the tax on the income from pokies in NSW has been raised astronomical amount over the last few years that a lot of clubs are going broke or looking for new ways to make an income. The only thing making people gamble less will do is make less money go to the state governments as tax.

Also, you can expect almost any anti-gambling bill to be passed through as the Federal Government needs the vote of Senator Xenephon to get their Emissions Trading Scheme through (and any bill actually). If you don't know who he is here is a quick rundown.

He is an anti-gambling campaigner who became famous in South Australia. He was voted into the South Australian parliament on this basis. He decided to run for the Federal senate and the people of South Australia voted for him again. Most people like voting for a 'strong' independent but most people don't realise he is a one issue politician. He is a lot like Senator Fielding. they don't represent the whole of Australia but here we are basically held over a barrel by them. Fielding is a fundamentalist Chrisitan who is also anti-gambling. He also doesn't even believe in man made global warming so I'm not sure how the government will be able to get him to vote for their EMS by using any (probably one based off this report) to get their votes.

The Greens are also needed and are also anti-gambling.

It basically looks like this.
Labor has 32 senators, the Liberal/National party coalition 37, Greens 5, Family First (Fielding) 1, Independent (Xenephon) 1. So Labor needs the Greens, Fielding and Xenephon to vote with them for ANY bill to pass the Senate and all of those votes they need are from anti-gambling people.

[baabaa006]

First off to simmo. you are correct in what you say. australian online based casino's cannot accept any australian players. Although to my knowledge there was only ever 1 any way and this was run out of darwin ( northern territory) which do not have as strict rules and regulations and most states. (im sure jhv will correct me if im wrong) and for me online is already the go along with alot of other australians for many reasons.

Aussies also can't play at any casino that uses wagerworks software. Which sux because those slots look awesome (Monopoly etc).