'Crack Cocaine of the highstreet'

[PNEFOREVER2]

Saw this this morning, thought it was quite interesting. £46 billion wagered in Britain last year, be interesting to hear what people think here as to whether stakes should be reduced. I've always managed to stay clear of these Roulette machines but used to place bets on horses years ago and have seen friends blow their months wages in less than an hour on these, being able to lose £100 within 20 seconds does seem a little too much.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Redbet-Andy]

I really dislike those things! I have friends who get paid in cash, can't get credit and throw a lot of money into these, and they are everywhere now.
They should be limited to the same RTP as online games generally are, RNG, max bet of £1 per spin and the spins should be set at longer intervals. That'll go some way to making them less addictive and fairer.
Liverpool City Council voted to ban from the city. Hurrah for them.

 

[Richas]

Saw this this morning, thought it was quite interesting. £46 billion wagered in Britain last year, be interesting to hear what people think here as to whether stakes should be reduced. I've always managed to stay clear of these Roulette machines but used to place bets on horses years ago and have seen friends blow their months wages in less than an hour on these, being able to lose £100 within 20 seconds does seem a little too much.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I do not like them much and don't use them myself but it is a choice issue, if the antis get to ban these then they will be after Internet Gambling next.

The anti campaign is misleading in many ways, run by a man who likes to send out libel threats and who stioll has strong financial ties to the casino industry in the UK - he & his partner own over 5.5% of Galaxy Gaming and their patents for Three Card Poker and other games like Blackjack side bets are mortgaged to that same firm with about $18m owing to be paid before Derek Webb relinquishing his control over them. Crucuially the big money spinner is the British only rights of Three Card Poker in casinos. He sold the British Internet rights for $1.5m and the rest of the Internet and International rights were sold in two goes, following a nasty court case and then via a settlement of a continuation of that nasty court case for an extra $5.5m.

The campaign founder hates these machines because they deal three card brag and refused to pay him for his "invention" - in the UK there is no need to games are not patentable in the UK or EU, only in the US. He hates them and they compete with the income stream that goes to Galaxy Gaming then to Prime Table Games and then to this campaign...an income stream which is in fact pretty voluntary, the casinos could deal three card brag instead and escape his copyright rights for 3CP.

On Dec 23rd this year it will be three years since he sold the British Internet rights so a likely point for his goodwill and non compete clauses to expire. In January he is planning a new campaign on Internet gambling which coincidentally is the same time as Sheldon Adelson launches his coalition against Internet Gambling.

I don't like FOBTs but this campaign is far more misleading, in my view, after considerable research and only with that evidence to back me I can make an honest belief legal defence to have the right to say I believe the campaign is in part personal vendetta and in part commercial interest.

The Daily Mail has its own history of backing UK casinos - you will notice that the focus here is not on the dramatic rise in B1 stakes from £2 stak and £5k max win to £5 max stake and £20k max win, it is all about opposing their high street competition. Competition is exactly what it is from the 2010 Gamblign Prevalence Survey we know that 42% of those who use FOBTs also play casino table games where the stakes are unlimited and the months wages can be on one spin.

 

[dunover]

I really dislike those things! I have friends who get paid in cash, can't get credit and throw a lot of money into these, and they are everywhere now.
They should be limited to the same RTP as online games generally are, RNG, max bet of £1 per spin and the spins should be set at longer intervals. That'll go some way to making them less addictive and fairer.
Liverpool City Council voted to ban from the city. Hurrah for them.

Yes, and numerous TV documentaries have clearly demonstrated the negative social effects of these FOBT's which have 'sucked the soul' from High Streets in poorer areas. In Ireland they are banned.
They play apparently like a cross between AWP's and Random Games, similar to B3 £500 arcade slots which aren't as random as proper online games - you can feed them and get the jackpot unlike online slots. There is a video on the web I saw (can't find it at the moment) where a player bets in a certain way on the FOBT roulette and correctly predicts the number 36 will come out, which he does 3 times consecutively. He had set his bet up in a way that ONLY 36 would lose him all his stake.

 

[Richas]

Yes, and numerous TV documentaries have clearly demonstrated the negative social effects of these FOBT's which have 'sucked the soul' from High Streets in poorer areas. In Ireland they are banned.
They play apparently like a cross between AWP's and Random Games, similar to B3 £500 arcade slots which aren't as random as proper online games - you can feed them and get the jackpot unlike online slots. There is a video on the web I saw (can't find it at the moment) where a player bets in a certain way on the FOBT roulette and correctly predicts the number 36 will come out, which he does 3 times consecutively. He had set his bet up in a way that ONLY 36 would lose him all his stake.

Yeah his £500k spend on this campaign has certainly got his message across. It is a shame that our media Dispatches, Panorama, Inside Out, Mail, Express, Independent, Guardian, Sunday People and more are all agreed....why do we have no media diversity at all?

The research shows Problem Gambling in Scotland in 1999 before these machines were introduced was 0.7% in 2012 after they sucked the soul it was 0.7%

The number of bookies has been stable over the decade. It is a myth that we have many more, they have just moved to busier locations.

As for that video and the games, the B2 games are random. They are tested as such and would be illegal if they were not random. I have seen the video, it does not show a lack of randomness and showed 36 coming once not three times. I have also seen a video of a maxed bet on one number winning. The machines are random, the video edit is not.

In 2010 4% of adults used FOBTs. It is a shame that this minority is targeted for a ban, if they get their way on this watch out, you could be next. The addiction rate for online slots was in 2010 significantly higher than for FOBTs. Online is next on the list.

First they came for the FOBT players,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a FOBT player.

 

[dunover]

Yeah his £500k spend on this campaign has certainly got his message across. It is a shame that our media Dispatches, Panorama, Inside Out, Mail, Express, Independent, Guardian, Sunday People and more are all agreed....why do we have no media diversity at all?

The research shows Problem Gambling in Scotland in 1999 before these machines were introduced was 0.7% in 2012 after they sucked the soul it was 0.7%

The number of bookies has been stable over the decade. It is a myth that we have many more, they have just moved to busier locations.

As for that video and the games, the B2 games are random. They are tested as such and would be illegal if they were not random. I have seen the video, it does not show a lack of randomness and showed 36 coming once not three times. I have also seen a video of a maxed bet on one number winning. The machines are random, the video edit is not.

In 2010 4% of adults used FOBTs. It is a shame that this minority is targeted for a ban, if they get their way on this watch out, you could be next. The addiction rate for online slots was in 2010 significantly higher than for FOBTs. Online is next on the list.

First they came for the FOBT players,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a FOBT player.

I take your point, and I'm not into state-nannyism either. In this case, FOBT's (considering you say they are a minority occupation as compared to online slots) are prevalent in all the problem gaming fora I've read in that pro-rata they far exceed online as a source of misery. YouTube is full of people smashing them up and legging it, breaking down in front of them. A bookmaker's shop used to be 'speculating on the outcome of future events, the result of which is not controlled by the bookmaker'. Now they are becoming High St. casinos without casino licences.
How do you explain bookies applying for licenses in the past for shops containing ONLY FOBT's?? Or having multiple outlets near each other to get round the limit of 4 machines per premises?? Follow the money and you'll find the answer.

 

[Balthazar]

How do they work exactly? Are they [strike] rigged[/strike] "skill based" like your fruit machines?

 

[Richas]

I take your point, and I'm not into state-nannyism either. In this case, FOBT's (considering you say they are a minority occupation as compared to online slots) are prevalent in all the problem gaming fora I've read in that pro-rata they far exceed online as a source of misery. YouTube is full of people smashing them up and legging it, breaking down in front of them. A bookmaker's shop used to be 'speculating on the outcome of future events, the result of which is not controlled by the bookmaker'. Now they are becoming High St. casinos without casino licences.
How do you explain bookies applying for licenses in the past for shops containing ONLY FOBT's?? Or having multiple outlets near each other to get round the limit of 4 machines per premises?? Follow the money and you'll find the answer.

That's because they are visible and under CCTV, the smashed laptop at home is not videoed.

There are no licence applications for just FOBTs, they are not allowed under the "primary purpose" rule.

Bookies used to be spread out, often in side streets, as the planning rules said they needed to be meeting "unmet demand". That requirement went in 2007 so they have relocated to prime high street locations, often because the recession meant there were good locations available. They cluster for the same reasons as all retailers, you have multiple costas or Prets within yards not because they have limited numbers of espresso machines or sandwich fridges but because retail is all about location

You are right though, this campaign is about protecting the casino monopoly. They don't like competition.

Following the money shows this campaign is anti competitive, it is not about protecting the vulnerable, proper self exclusion and more help is not the focus as it should be, instead we get one product demonised. Online slots are next.

Edit - I said online slots had a higher proportion of problem gamblers not that they had most customers. More money is spent on FOBTs than online slots. They also get profile as they are seen as "new" and there is an active campaign. People like blaming a machine not themselves. The evidence is they would be PG anyway, with or without FOBTs, at least the saem number would be PG.

 

[Richas]

How do they work exactly? Are they [strike] rigged[/strike] "skill based" like your fruit machines?

Random, just like all casino style games they have a house edge built in to the pay table.

 

[dunover]

Random, just like all casino style games they have a house edge built in to the pay table.

I've not played one, but if you can make selections that make it almost certain you'll win something and the pseudo roulette wheel repeatedly throws the same one or two losing numbers out (i.e. play reactively) then I can understand why those that play them question their programming. There was also a mistake on one brand of FOBT or a controversy/inaccuracy that I'm sure Richas will be able to quote verbatim?

 

[dizze]

why ban them when idiots would rather play 10% HE games like rainbow riches and not 0.5% HE games like blackjack or 0.2% like blackjack switch

they should however stop those who are not mentally or physically capable of understanding whats going on from playing them.

 

[Nifty29]

why ban them when idiots would ratherunderstanding10% HE games like rainbow riches and notperson's HE games like blackjack or 0.2% like blackjack switch

they should however stop those who are not mentally or physically capable of understanding whats going on from playing them.

Ok. Let's say they implemented your idea.

What would constitute "physically or mentally capable of understanding what's going on"? Who would judge each person's status?

It would mean the entire House of Lords and the majority of the Commons would be banned from gambling for starters.

 

[dizze]

Ok. Let's say they implemented your idea.

What would constitute "physically or mentally capable of understanding what's going on"? Who would judge each person's status?

It would mean the entire House of Lords and the majority of the Commons would be banned from gambling for starters.

those who are receipt of disability benefits for one.

funny thing is , if they introduced a bj game, with lets say 99.8% rtp, the players loss in the long run would be much lower( even though he could lose it all in the short run)

And it would fit the requirement of social responsibility as well, because as we all know, bj is also very streaky, and you could definitely turn £10 into £500

if people cant be bothered to look at the massive sign that says 92% rtp on the bottom left hand side, then they deserved to be robbed by the machines.

EGO..EGO...EGO thats all it is, they think that they will be that special person who will win

 

[dunover]

why ban them when idiots would rather play 10% HE games like rainbow riches and not 0.5% HE games like blackjack or 0.2% like blackjack switch

they should however stop those who are not mentally or physically capable of understanding whats going on from playing them.

What do you suggest? A quick IQ test in the doorway of the bookies for each new customer? A doctor's certificate of mental competence to be carried at all times by patrons of said bookies and shown upon request?

 

[Nifty29]

those who are receipt of disability benefits for one.

funny thing is , if they introduced a bj game, with lets say 99.8% rtp, the players loss in the long run would be much lower( even though he could lose it all in the short run)

And it would fit the requirement of social responsibility as well, because as we all know, bj is also very streaky, and you could definitely turn £10 into £500

if people cant be bothered to look at the massive sign that says 92% rtp on the bottom left hand side, then they deserved to be robbed by the machines.

EGO..EGO...EGO thats all it is, they think that they will be that special person who will win

LOL.

Are you serious? Really??

So, somebody who lost their foot in an accident, or was born with only one hand, or paraplegic etc etc should not be allowed to gamble? Sounds like you would have been in your element in 1930's-40's Europe.

Based on your statements thus far, I think it is you who has an issue with "understanding what is going on".

 

[JackTenOff]

those who are receipt of disability benefits for one.

You should also be banned from gambling under your own retarded logic for such a stupid post, well done.
Most people on benefits are on them because they need them, put down the Daily Mail for 5 seconds and get a grip.

 

[dizze]

LOL.

Are you serious? Really??

So, somebody who lost their foot in an accident, or was born with only one hand, or paraplegic etc etc should not be allowed to gamble? Sounds like you would have been in your element in 1930's-40's Europe.

Based on your statements thus far, I think it is you who has an issue with "understanding what is going on".

no need to get personal, "LOL",

So you get it, we should let everyone gamble, heck, im gonna let my 2 year old kid play his college money on roulette!

You should also be banned from gambling under your own retarded logic for such a stupid post, well done.
Most people on benefits are on them because they need them, put down the Daily Mail for 5 seconds and get a grip.

Ok you retard, theyve already got this in the uk form of protecting the "vulnerable"

Dont turn this into a swearing contest you twat, does your mother teach you to speak like that?

 

[Richas]

Well Labour have come out against these.

Indeed Highland council dominated by the SNP voted unanimously to ban/control them, as did the Brighton council full of Greens and the Liverpool council, full of Labour and Libs.

We have a new political consensus to ban and control FOBTs.

Well watch out, they are coming for online next.

My prediction for Jan 2014 the same campaign that has got so many to sign up to this nonsense ban in the same week that it was proved that problem gambling is no worse in 2012 than it was before these machines were introduced will be coming for online gamblers soon. Specifically any time after the 23rd December 2013 they will be broadening their campaign to online.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well Labour have come out against these.

Indeed Highland council dominated by the SNP voted unanimously to ban/control them, as did the Brighton council full of Greens and the Liverpool council, full of Labour and Libs.

We have a new political consensus to ban and control FOBTs.

Well watch out, they are coming for online next.

My prediction for Jan 2014 the same campaign that has got so many to sign up to this nonsense ban in the same week that it was proved that problem gambling is no worse in 2012 than it was before these machines were introduced will be coming for online gamblers soon. Specifically any time after the 23rd December 2013 they will be broadening their campaign to online.

With the greatest of respect Richas (and ordinarily your posts make a great deal of sense and I tend to agree with them), I'm utterly bemused by your position on this issue.

FOBTs are an aberration, they have absolutely no place on the high street whatsoever, and the sooner they're outlawed the better. (Or at least knocked down to a maximum stake of £2.)

Games such as this belong in casinos, that's all the 'no' campaign is saying as far as I can tell, and I see no reason to see that online gaming is the next 'target'.

 

[Richas]

With the greatest of respect Richas (and ordinarily your posts make a great deal of sense and I tend to agree with them), I'm utterly bemused by your position on this issue.

FOBTs are an aberration, they have absolutely no place on the high street whatsoever, and the sooner they're outlawed the better. (Or at least knocked down to a maximum stake of £2.)

Games such as this belong in casinos, that's all the 'no' campaign is saying as far as I can tell, and I see no reason to see that online gaming is the next 'target'.

Wait and see. The anti gambling lobby have had a win with the help of the bricks and mortar casino lobby. Sheldon Adelson is launching his Stop Internet Gambling coalition in January and my guess is that there will be a UK arm/affiliate from the same people as are behind Stop The FOBTs.

Online is an FOBT, just with no stake or spin rate limits.

It is my belief that there are contractual reasons for the delay in launching their anti online gambling wing.

As for casinos being the best place for a monopoly - why so when today many are walk in and serve alcohol at the table. they have lower levels of protection than the bookies. Bookies do not stay open after the pubs and clubs and serve you alcohol as you gamble.

 

[Nifty29]

Just as an aside...


Why do some people think it's OK to use the word "retarded" in a derogatory way?

Obviously they do not know someone with a mental or physical disability. It's disgusting.

If one cannot win or make an argument without using such childish insults (also including "twat" and "stupid"), one should keep out of adult conversations and go back to the sandpit.

Rant over.

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

Just as an aside...


Why do some people think it's OK to use the word "retarded" in a derogatory way?

Obviously they do not know someone with a mental or physical disability. It's disgusting.


Rant over.

I absolutely hate the word, "spastic" is another. I have a brother who has spina biffida and also has learning difficulties, and the amount of times I have heard him being called the aforementioned is shocking.

I had an uncle who, as a kid use to take the mickey out of people with down syndrome, and my dad use to say to him one day those comments could come around to bite you on your arse.

His first child when he was older was born with down syndrome.

 

[Andy Walker]

Fixing Odds Betting Terminals, everywhere in the UK, no limits set on what you can push through them, £100 a spin every 20 seconds if you wish with only a £500 jackpot, perhaps the moniker fits?

 

[Andy Walker]

I absolutely hate the word, "spastic" is another. I have a brother who has spina biffida and also has learning difficulties, and the amount of times I have heard him being called the aforementioned is shocking.

I had an uncle who, as a kid use to take the mickey out of people with down syndrome, and my dad use to say to him one day those comments could come around to bite you on your arse.

His first child when he was older was born with down syndrome.

Whilst I agree with the both of you and the "terms" let's not side track from the real issue of the original post, please.

 

[JackTenOff]

Just as an aside...


Why do some people think it's OK to use the word "retarded" in a derogatory way?

Obviously they do not know someone with a mental or physical disability. It's disgusting.

If one cannot win or make an argument without using such childish insults (also including "twat" and "stupid"), one should keep out of adult conversations and go back to the sandpit.

Rant over.

Same people that use the word 'gay' as an insult

 

[dunover]

Getting back on track after derail.....

Government votes against reform yesterday - the hideous £300 per minute losing potential on FOBTs remains:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

They are supposedly looking at other reform though.

 

[Richas]

With the greatest of respect Richas (and ordinarily your posts make a great deal of sense and I tend to agree with them), I'm utterly bemused by your position on this issue.

FOBTs are an aberration, they have absolutely no place on the high street whatsoever, and the sooner they're outlawed the better. (Or at least knocked down to a maximum stake of £2.)

Games such as this belong in casinos, that's all the 'no' campaign is saying as far as I can tell, and I see no reason to see that online gaming is the next 'target'.

Here is the draft website for a new campaign to ban all gambling advertising across the EU. If you check the My Story tab you can see it is by the same people who hve embraced the "FOBT bad" mantra. It is an add on spin off from that lobby group.

The (ex)gambling addicts behind it have some good ideas, like banning reverse withdrawals and getting the online industry to adopt a code like the new ABB one unfortunately they are centrally wedded to the banning of all gambling advertising, including online, a condition that would harm legitimate online forms disproportionately.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I said the antis would be after online next...they are. Sheldon Adelson and co want gambling restricted to casinos - it is called regulatory capture in busines terms.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Does gambling really need to be advertised?

I was in the pub last week when the footy was on (I wasn't there for the footy I was there for the AWPs ) and every advert break was just an assault of advertising for gambling in various forms, it was very distasteful.

People who want to gamble know where to go, it doesn't need to be advertised on mainstream television.

 

[Richas]

Does gambling really need to be advertised?

I was in the pub last week when the footy was on (I wasn't there for the footy I was there for the AWPs ) and every advert break was just an assault of advertising for gambling in various forms, it was very distasteful.

People who want to gamble know where to go, it doesn't need to be advertised on mainstream television.

If you want a competitive market for the punter then yes, gambling does need to be advertised. This is particularly true for newer products with multiple new entrants with new brands like we have with online gambling. Banning advertising is a major barrier to new entrants.

People know where to go via advertising, they make choices between providers via advertising and promotions and punters get better prices as a result of the competition between advertisers.

You are right that FOBTs and AWP machines don't have much in the way of advertising - people know that you find them in bookies and pubs respectively so they are effectively advertised by the physical outlet and its signage. The spate of ads you are seeing now are about getting Apps on to people's smart phones - it is like a klondike gold rush to sign up as many to each suppliers app as they can get. Once they have become ubiquitous and well known by all they will spend less on advertising.

 

[dunover]

This bloke did Ok from the FOBTs....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And admitted he was challenging the boundaries of laws and regulations...


And here is the serious attitude they give to SE...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Slotster!]

I'm against regulation of anything, generally speaking, firmly in the camp of people should always be allowed to make up their own mind and make their own decisions.

There comes a point however that the more capable in society need to look out for the less capable; that is not happening here.

On the rare occasion I've popped into an actual bookies - every single time there's been one or more people glued to the screen pumping money into it like it's going out of fashion. Of course you see exactly the same thing in casino's, but that's what you go there for, they are not next to the chemist on the high street and most people can't nip in to a casino without the Mrs noticing. I've played them and lost or done OK or in-between - but I'm able to do so at the same £1 spins I'd play online with a dedicated budget. Plus, I'm not keen on roulette. Usually the environment isn't conducive to a good time either so I'll fill out my accumulator or whatever and make myself scarce.

With FOBT's - the balance of profit versus responsibility has tipped way way way too far in the bookies favour -- and coming from someone who''ll gladly spend three hours solid watching pretty reels spin round and round on the off chance a feature hits -- that's saying something.

 

[Richas]

With FOBT's - the balance of profit versus responsibility has tipped way way way too far in the bookies favour -- and coming from someone who''ll gladly spend three hours solid watching pretty reels spin round and round on the off chance a feature hits -- that's saying something.

FYI 30% of the revenues from these machines come from the £2 max B3 slot style games.

Here is another anti FOBT petition, calling for a ban on roulette. Please note how it ends, blaming FOBTs for the much worse online gambling...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

its like any drug and addiction it starts off small using the machines in bookies then leads to online gambling in the confort of ur own home you become trapped and surrounded by it we need to cut the root of the problem

If you don't defend the freedoms of those that choose gambling products you don't like then you risk losing those products that you do.

Meanwhile Problem Gambling rates are no worse now that in 1999 before the rise of FOBTs and Internet gambling. The Internet and FOBTs do not cause Problem Gambling, they are attractive products for problem gamblers and such addiction can have terrible consequences but banning one form of gambling would solve nothing.

 

[dunover]

Well, the 'protective measures' are now compulsory from Friday last week:

Dirk Hansen of 'Gamcare' (paid for/funded by gambling profits) said without a hint of embarrassment:

"These new measures will not only educate players to the risks associated with gambling but also empower individuals to get support when they need it”

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[catapultaudio]

I really hate the garbage spouted in the media about these machines. Sure, they are 'addictive' - in that they are fun to play and the potential for reward is attractive enough to make people want to return to play again - what exactly is different about it to any other form of gambling or gaming? ... If these machines are banned, it will only be a matter of time before on-line gambling becomes the target and it may not be banned (here in the UK at least) but their could VERY LIKELY end up being disgusting rules and restrictions that work AGAINST the player, whether degenerate or recreational.

A very relevant example: William Hill have a bonus card scheme whereby you earn points for your play on the machines. I used to receive a text every wednesday and saturday offering me free points, slot spins, blackjack hands etc if i went in and used the machine before the following wednesday/saturday. I stopped receiving these around November time and when I enquired I was told the freebies had been stopped in response to pressure on them for 'incentivizing' people to come and play ...

So somewhere down the line all the first deposit bonuses and free spins offers etc online could also end up disappearing, and who wants that?! ...

 

[sparkz]

That phrase makes me chuckle. It's a load of crap really. You may as well call online gambling the "crack cocaine" because you can bet way more online than you can on a FOBT, plus thanks technology such as mobile phones and tablet's you can gamble anywhere at any point. £100 a spin on roulette every 10 seconds?? So what, online it can be much more than that.

Why is it that only roulette is ever mentioned in the same sentence as FOBT and "crack cocaine" ? Simple, because it's the FOBT roulette that can cause people problems. However FOBT's as a whole are branded the "crack cocaine", not "Roulette on the FOBT's".

I think theres maybe 3 types of roulette on a FOBT, but the majority of games are slots which are £2 max spin (not "crack cocaine" stake's).

You can actually class pub fruit machines "the crack cocaine" based on this argument because actually FOBT slots are better and pay out much more for what is put in.

Pub fruity:

- £100 jackpot
- 25p/50p/£1 a spin
- Average payout % is a low 76% (some are just 70%)
- Compensated machines (If someone emptied it before you walked in, you are screwed before you even realise)

FOBT slot:

- £500 max prize in 1 game (I don't call it jackpot because it uses an RNG, so just like online, even if a big win was just taken, it can pay again)
- 25p/50p/£1/£2 a spin (Apart from "Fortune spins", usually are super spins that are 4 for £10 or mega spins that are 4 for £20. These increase the payout % by a few % and give extra bonus features).
- Average payout around 92/94% (Increased with fortune spins).
- Slots are random

FOBT slots seem to be like playing online. Actually many of the slots on FOBT's are featured online (Harry Trotter, Rainbow Riches). Yes the payout is slightly lower but if you win, you get cold hard cash right away and not have to wait days for it to hit your bank.

I for one would much prefer to put £200 into FOBT slots knowing that any spin could give me a very nice win opposed to shoving it into a pub fruity knowing that even if that £200 forced the jackpot, it probably wont repeat.


The responsible gambling rules that come in place with FOBT's where you can set limits wont work as a problem gambler won't set a limit, or even if they did they could just go to another bookies.

The bottom line though is just because roulette is £100 max a spin, it doesn't mean people should be betting that high. Same as online, we can bet much more in 1 spin, but many of us don't unless we are a high roller and have that money to blow

 

[Richas]

Well this campaign keeps on rolling. This time the Mail is off saying how bad Playtech are, whilst forgetting to mention that when the Mail launched their own Slots and Bingo site they launched using Playtech as their partner run by the "jailbird pornographer" Teddy Sagi

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

now I know some here don't think this campaign will spill over on to restricting online gambling but if they win it will. Already it is shifting to companies that supply both markets.

Also of all the people who use these machines 43% also use online slots. Now that is today so if they restrict the machines the next target is obvious...those prevented from playing in shop will migrate online bringing the moral panic brigade with them. The other point is that your fellow online players are FOBT users already, show a bit of solidarity. Unfortunately the bookies are a bit incompetent, they have a petition in store that is a bit pants - they have an onlie site here that is pretty pants (and does not include the petition on the front page

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

If you want to sign it you would need this link:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

As I say the wording is a bit pants but have a look

“My local bookie is part of my community. I should be able to spend time and money there if I choose, and I don’t support government action that threatens to take away that freedom and also puts jobs at risk.”

 

[dunover]

Well this campaign keeps on rolling. This time the Mail is off saying how bad Playtech are, whilst forgetting to mention that when the Mail launched their own Slots and Bingo site they launched using Playtech as their partner run by the "jailbird pornographer" Teddy Sagi

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

now I know some here don't think this campaign will spill over on to restricting online gambling but if they win it will. Already it is shifting to companies that supply both markets.

Also of all the people who use these machines 43% also use online slots. Now that is today so if they restrict the machines the next target is obvious...those prevented from playing in shop will migrate online bringing the moral panic brigade with them. The other point is that your fellow online players are FOBT users already, show a bit of solidarity. Unfortunately the bookies are a bit incompetent, they have a petition in store that is a bit pants - they have an onlie site here that is pretty pants (and does not include the petition on the front page

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

If you want to sign it you would need this link:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

As I say the wording is a bit pants but have a look

I'm surprised they'd have funds to play online slots afterwards.....
Plus the FOBT's are a UK phenomenon and online gaming supplied from overseas-licensed sites cannot be as easily restricted so it's disingenuous to infer that cracking down on a localized issue will be replicated online.
Plus you have tools to limit the budget in online sites, unlike FOBT's plus more effective SE tools.
So, comparing FOBT's to online games is a chalk-and-cheese scenario.
Scaremongering by the High Street chains jealously guarding their vast and easy revenues from FOBT's.
I personally don't know another online player that uses FOBT's anyway.

 

[Richas]

I'm surprised they'd have funds to play online slots afterwards.....
Plus the FOBT's are a UK phenomenon and online gaming supplied from overseas-licensed sites cannot be as easily restricted so it's disingenuous to infer that cracking down on a localized issue will be replicated online.
Plus you have tools to limit the budget in online sites, unlike FOBT's plus more effective SE tools.
So, comparing FOBT's to online games is a chalk-and-cheese scenario.
Scaremongering by the High Street chains jealously guarding their vast and easy revenues from FOBT's.
I personally don't know another online player that uses FOBT's anyway.

The legal and practical barriers for our US cousins don't actually stop them, but it has made things a lot worse for them.

If you really think that the moral panic anti gambling crowd will stop if they get B2 games banned (in dry bookies, where children are not allowed and staff can intervene to help) and will just ignore higher stake, higher jackpot online games of the exact same type then you really don't understand how their moral self righteousness makes them sure that they know what you should do or be allowed to do better than you.

Online has the potential to be socially responsible in its offer but the things you point to are by no means universal and the industry has a record in many areas of dubious practice. Bookies do need better self exclusion and better systems. As the games are essentially the same they could move to account betting entirely, except of course many of their customers do not want that. All the advantages you claim (in theory) for online vs FOBTs could be implemented on these machines.

One example I will point out is the publication of RTPs, on the FOBTs it is a minimum requirement to have an accurate published RTP and that is enforced. Online the way RTPs have been kept secret, likely been changed and/or the optimal strategy altered or varied between the same games on different sites or over time. In this way the FOBTs are superior to much of the online offer - there is better game information on the FOBTs.

I am saddened that so much of the propaganda has been swallowed by some who play essentially the same games online rather than in shop.

 

[mathsboy1975]

Well this campaign keeps on rolling. This time the Mail is off saying how bad Playtech are, whilst forgetting to mention that when the Mail launched their own Slots and Bingo site they launched using Playtech as their partner run by the "jailbird pornographer" Teddy Sagi

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I just read that article and it is a crock of sh*te even by Daily Mail standards. Tearing strips off someone for providing technology that allows people to lose money. Doing the same by betting on horses or football teams is clearly OK though...

How does it differ from these abysmal "virtual" horse racing and greyhounds. It is all just a front end on a back end RNG generator at the end of the day.

This line really made me roll my eyes

They have been blamed for an increase in problem gambling, and are said to have an almost hypnotic effect that leaves players like ‘zombies’."

The latter part of that also applies to kids on playstations and xbox.