End of slots for online casinos in UK?

Yep, the mere suggestion some of us actually take responsibility for our actions and have some degree of self control is lost on them.
It's telling how much they've been pushing responsible gambling tools in the past few years, and then you see statistics like "Safety in numbers: 1 in 3 players use our Safer Gambling tools".

All that marketing, all that pressure... and you still only convinced 1 in 3 to use it?!

Part of the problem is the lack of trust, which is not a surprise when many of the tools don't work correctly - I refuse to use anything beyond deposit limits (the easy one) because I've seen the range of garbage and technical errors generated by some sites. I recall WH were particularly bad for calculating win-loss, in some cases the margin of error was bigger than the deposits for the month!
Surely the most sensible tool and it is not cryptically worded is the "Loss Limit"

Player A can afford to lose £400 PCM without it becoming an issue to every day life, bills, rent, mortgage etc, set the damn limit to this and you're home and dry :confused:

I know there is more to it in some cases but using the loss limit as opposed to deposit limit, allows player A to have a winning start to a new period and if so chooses (being of sound mind and free will and all that) can deposit some or most of their winnings back without placing themselves in a problematic situation.

IMO, the whole RG, AML, SoW etc etc etc needs revisiting and this time by people who know what they are doing, with some idea of how this industry actually works.
Surely the most sensible tool and it is not cryptically worded is the "Loss Limit"
I fully agree with the sentiment, my concern is how many sites bizarrely can't calculate profit and loss correctly. An understandable counterargument here would be a regulator kicking operators up the backside to make sure their systems are compliant with the requirements of their license.

In the case of deposit limits - there are usually two, gross (ignores withdrawals) and net (includes withdrawals). The latter would behave similarly - with minor differences - to the loss limit mentioned, however being much simpler to calculate means sites are less likely to make a hash of it.

My tolerance for game-breaking bugs is pretty low - and that distain would extend to a malfunctioning RG system. I've seen my share of profit/loss calculations that were hilariously bad, and in some cases if I was using a loss limit rather than a deposit limit, I would be restricted due to a software bug rather than an intentional action.

Naturally I can play elsewhere, or stop playing... but not good for the trust angle when the system malfunctions like that.
I’m not someone who ordinarily jumps to the defence of the gambling companies but they must be fuming. What the hell was the point of introducing all these tools and advertising regarding knowing your limits/safety and how to use them if the shitshow that is the UKGC is going to effectively inflict their restrictions on pretty much everyone anyway?
Sure, maybe the tools don’t always work as they should. I personally haven’t used the more granular ones. However, they do exist, there are a load of ways to help yourself and get help if it is a problem. If you are that obsessed beyond that you’ll probably find a way to play via VPN anyway.
And I am coming at this as a former addict who burnt through tens of thousands, probably six figure lifetime, first on pub fruities, then online, then bookies. Not once did I think that crippling the industry was the way to help me.
It is a vice for sure so the case can be made to its real value to the world. In all honesty, if they binned all gambling tomorrow I’d survive and maybe that is where we are eventually heading. Just stop hiding behind the “we’re doing this for your own good” bollox.
Emphasis on their money, right? If fit and able to work and choose not to do so, certain rights should be violated. Gambling being one of them.

Bit of a grey area IMO mate.

Claiming benefits, no health issues or other BS lazy excuses and sat on arse all day, everyday, not rising till the afternoon, making no effort at all, then YES get the ban in place, also no takeaways, no fags, no booze, no Sky and definatley no pissing me off by saying, " Eye dow git paid until tommah" - Erm No, NO, NO fucking NO, you have to WORK to get paid, you mean "Yew doh get ya andoutz until the morra"

Claiming same benefits but applying for jobs weekly but having no luck or not wanted as you have a "face for radio" but generally making a decent effort then yes, spend as you please.
Most people I have known who choose not to work, either drink too much, gamble too much or are continuously stoned. Never come across many genuine cases, ever. There’s a job out there, if you want it badly enough.

Honestly Snorks, there is a mixed bag, albeit it weighted and compensated :p

I worked for a large "Welfare to Work" company for about 12 years, long story short, get the unemployed, get them job ready, find them a job, keep them in said job.

Rough figures but about 75% were a combination of those you describe (lazy in a nutshell) or working on the side. 25% or so did actually want to work but had either bad luck galore or poor skill sets or other "barriers"

DWP only set our targets at 10% JER (Job Entry Rate) due to the combination of the above factors.
Benefits were never intended as a lifestyle choice. but have become one for many.

Coupled with this country's penchant for poverty porn (Benefits Street's just marked its 10th anniversary everyone!) and the media's portraying those in receipt as of a Jeremy Kyle-esque disposition, it's easy to form an overall image.

Your average seeker of work will likely be on Jobseeker's Allowance, whilst other types may incorporate Employment Support Allowance, Disability Benefit etc, with a wide-ranging set of circumstances. Some may just have mental health problems but are physically A-ok and so forth, it's really not a cut & dried issue.

Wasn't that long ago that the Government peddled the idea of giving those people they despise most Benefits in the form of vouchers, so that the 'feckless' and 'work-shy' wouldn't splurge their ill-gotten gains on vices like smoking, gambling and breathing. Yet it got retracted fairly sharpish as ministers slunk off after being ridiculed into oblivion!

Fact is, politicians already think along these lines, so they'll likely push these proposals through, such as eliminating vices from the poor, afforded to them by Johnny Taxpayer, however controversial. So for those on certain rungs of Benefits to not be able to gamble at some point isn't as far-fetched as it may seem, rightly or wrongly. They simply don't care :cool:
It was the start of the end for FOBT’s and it will be the same for UK facing Casinos.

They aren’t happy now with the profits they make so reduce rtp, run rtp below advertised, don’t give any bonus incentives, etc and that’s with what must be thousands of players losing a fortune, playing high stakes.

Those players won’t drop their stakes, they will just find somewhere else to play.

Bookies thought they could get away with ditching single zero roulette but they've had to introduce it back again as even the addicts saw past their double and triple zero nonsense!

Also arcades now seem to want a bit of the bookies action!

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Bookies thought they could get away with ditching single zero roulette but they've had to introduce it back again as even the addicts saw past their double and triple zero nonsense!

Also arcades now seem to want a bit of the bookies action!

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
It was the max bet being reduced from £100 to £2 on the roulette that killed the bookies. That’s where they were raking in the dollars.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings