[News] Government do something right for a change regarding FOBTs.

[Insel affe]

At last something the government has done something I agree with, these evil machines the fixed odds betting terminals are being brought into line.

https://news.sky.com/story/maximum-stake-on-fobts-to-be-cut-to-2-11375598

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44148285

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41811989

I do not feel sorry the bookmakers and have no issue with people losing their jobs & shops closing.

Earlier this year analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research suggested that each year roulette-style betting machines cost £116m in hospital inpatient services alone, £32m in mental health services and £16m as a result of criminal behaviour.
It also estimated that problem gambling associated with the potentially addictive machines resulted in £13m in additional housing costs, while associated work difficulties cost £30m

https://news.sky.com/story/crack-cocaine-gambling-machines-maximum-stakes-set-to-be-cut-11375518


When will this come into force though, and will they appeal.

 

[beorhthelm]

I do not feel sorry the bookmakers and have no issue with people losing their jobs & shops closing.

i doubt there will be any directly related shop closures, maybe a few marginal shops that bearly make money. just the usual bleating of an industry faced with change.

 

[Beach Hut]

And an industry with a whole new window of opportunity about to arrive in the USA

 

[DavidRyder]

I've been in the bookies and seen hundreds lost in cold blood within minutes - it's scary.

I'll stick to my small footy bets.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

As an addict myself I'm very pleased that I've never got into gambling as, no doubt, my wonky dopamine receptors would have driven me to homelessness.

It might not help those already afflicted as they will go online or something to get their fix but will prevent the next generation from wrecking their lives at breakneck speed.

I'm not sure about the porridge wogs new rules about alcohol minimum unit price which will see white lightning cider do from 2.99 to 11 quid a bottle. I can see that driving up shoplifting and smuggling though.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

i doubt there will be any directly related shop closures, maybe a few marginal shops that bearly make money. just the usual bleating of an industry faced with change.

Even if there are I'm not going to shed any tears. The bookies have had it too good for too long. For example, for what reason is there any need for TWO Coral's in Hangleton less than 60 seconds walk apart ? And that isn't unique to Hangleton.

 

[Da Man Clay]

i doubt there will be any directly related shop closures, maybe a few marginal shops that bearly make money. just the usual bleating of an industry faced with change.

I bet there will. It’s a massive source of income for the bookies. As someone alluded to below - you certainly aren’t going to need two shops within short walking distance between them. Happens with alarming regularity in towns now.

 

[DavidRyder]

Even if there are I'm not going to shed any tears. The bookies have had it too good for too long. For example, for what reason is there any need for TWO Coral's in Hangleton less than 60 seconds walk apart ? And that isn't unique to Hangleton.

There's 3 Corals in close proximity in T/Wells, I've always thought it a bit odd.

 

[Simster]

i doubt there will be any directly related shop closures, maybe a few marginal shops that bearly make money. just the usual bleating of an industry faced with change.

There will. Most shops make most of their money because of the vulnerable sad sacks who sit on the FOBTs pouring money they can ill afford into them.

Even if there are I'm not going to shed any tears. The bookies have had it too good for too long. For example, for what reason is there any need for TWO Coral's in Hangleton less than 60 seconds walk apart ? And that isn't unique to Hangleton.

This. Redhill has THREE Corals, two of them are about 10 doors apart and the other one is less than 60 seconds away. It is unbelieve. On top of that, there is a Betfred and a William Hills.

I sincerely hope there are job losses and betting shop closures because these are not the sort of jobs and shops we want to be protecting any more than factory sweat shops. My reasoning is that bookies do absolutely nothing for the economy ultimately, except redistribute income. In fact, you could easily argue they cost the treasury money if you assume the losing punters would have spent that lost money on VATable goods and services, whereas the bookies are owned by shareholders who are either so wealthy that they don't need to spend it, or pension funds etc - both of which will pay less tax than the losing punter would have done with that money.

And when bookmakers bang on about job losses, they also don't mention the cost of cleaning up people's destroyed lives that they have facilitated.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

Even if there are I'm not going to shed any tears. The bookies have had it too good for too long. For example, for what reason is there any need for TWO Coral's in Hangleton less than 60 seconds walk apart ? And that isn't unique to Hangleton.

I bet there will. It’s a massive source of income for the bookies. As someone alluded to below - you certainly aren’t going to need two shops within short walking distance between them. Happens with alarming regularity in towns now.

There's 3 Corals in close proximity in T/Wells, I've always thought it a bit odd.

In the industry it's called Clustering. A few years back ( once Government bought FOBT's under regulation ) they set a limit of 4 machines per shop. In the old days bookmakers had to prove demand in a particular area to be granted a new shop licence, but this rule changed and the local licensing authority could grant a new shop licence for a fee!! This enabled the bookmakers to get around the 4 machines rule by opening more shops closer together thus giving them more machines in one small area.

 

[Goldstone1976]

In the industry it's called Clustering. A few years back ( once Government bought FOBT's under regulation ) they set a limit of 4 machines per shop. In the old days bookmakers had to prove demand in a particular area to be granted a new shop licence, but this rule changed and the local licensing authority could grant a new shop licence for a fee!! This enabled the bookmakers to get around the 4 machines rule by opening more shops closer together thus giving them more machines in one small area.

Christ.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

In the industry it's called Clustering. A few years back ( once Government bought FOBT's under regulation ) they set a limit of 4 machines per shop. In the old days bookmakers had to prove demand in a particular area to be granted a new shop licence, but this rule changed and the local licensing authority could grant a new shop licence for a fee!! This enabled the bookmakers to get around the 4 machines rule by opening more shops closer together thus giving them more machines in one small area.

Well hopefully this new regulation will stop clustering and we'll see a free shop in Hangleton. I'd like to vote for a fishmongers or Greengrocers to replace Coral's.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

Christ.

Indeed. Now you can see how the bookmakers have bent the rules and it's coming back to bite them in the arse big time.

 

[Arthur]

Even if there are I'm not going to shed any tears. The bookies have had it too good for too long. For example, for what reason is there any need for TWO Coral's in Hangleton less than 60 seconds walk apart ? And that isn't unique to Hangleton.

FOBTs is the short answer. There was legislation in place to limit the number of machines based on the square footage of the retail outlet.

One of those shops will now close I expect.

I won't bleat on about job losses as they were inevitable any way. SSBTs (which aren't covered by the same rules as FOBTs) will become the norm and retail shops will resemble little more than a games arcade but with sports betting. Todays decision has just accelerated that transition. Eventually like a lot of high street it will disappear completely.

The real loser out of today is the punter, FOBTs will now push the games that aren't affected and increase margins across the board and as I mentioned above betting shops won't be social hubs like they are now. Not sure the treasury are going to be too delighted either.

 

[Insel affe]

Not sure the treasury are going to be too delighted either.

Not sure you are right:
Earlier this year analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research suggested that each year roulette-style betting machines cost £116m in hospital inpatient services alone, £32m in mental health services and £16m as a result of criminal behaviour.
It also estimated that problem gambling associated with the potentially addictive machines resulted in £13m in additional housing costs, while associated work difficulties cost £30m

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

FOBTs is the short answer. There was legislation in place to limit the number of machines based on the square footage of the retail outlet.

One of those shops will now close I expect.

I won't bleat on about job losses as they were inevitable any way. SSBTs (which aren't covered by the same rules as FOBTs) will become the norm and retail shops will resemble little more than a games arcade but with sports betting. Todays decision has just accelerated that transition. Eventually like a lot of high street it will disappear completely.

The real loser out of today is the punter, FOBTs will now push the games that aren't affected and increase margins across the board and as I mentioned above betting shops won't be social hubs like they are now. Not sure the treasury are going to be too delighted either.

The Treasury's objections to the reduction in gaming stakes was a main part of the hold up in this announcement. However they are going to increase remote gaming ( internet gambling )levy/taxes to cover the shortfall.

 

[beorhthelm]

FOBTs is the short answer. There was legislation in place to limit the number of machines based on the square footage of the retail outlet.

ah, was not aware of this, so seems there will be closures.

 

[Ernest]

They can always go back to actually taking a bet on the horses for proper money instead of restricting punters to a £1 or 2, funny how they are bleating about restricting stakes when they have been doing it for years to punters

 

[Simster]

FOBTs is the short answer. There was legislation in place to limit the number of machines based on the square footage of the retail outlet.

One of those shops will now close I expect.

I won't bleat on about job losses as they were inevitable any way. SSBTs (which aren't covered by the same rules as FOBTs) will become the norm and retail shops will resemble little more than a games arcade but with sports betting. Todays decision has just accelerated that transition. Eventually like a lot of high street it will disappear completely.

The real loser out of today is the punter, FOBTs will now push the games that aren't affected and increase margins across the board and as I mentioned above betting shops won't be social hubs like they are now. Not sure the treasury are going to be too delighted either.

Some of this doesn't stand up to scrutiny in my view.

Firstly, this idea of betting shops being social hubs for one - there are certainly a handful of punters who treat them as such, but linking social mixing to a gambling outlet is surely not healthy. Regardless, the FOBT changes won't affect those who like to meet and study form on the dogs and horses before jizzing their money on stupid yankee and trixie bets. They will simply stop those who spend their time sitting on a stool in the corner pumping their money into FOBTs and then chasing the inevitable losses before losing everything in double quick time. With £2 a bet rather than £100 a bet, it's far easier to encourage and indeed expect people to take responsibility for their actions. If you lose £500 after pouring in £2 a spin on a machine with typical expected value of 95%, it will take you hours. You can easily turn round and say "didn't it occur to you at some point to stop as you saw your money steadily disappear"

Secondly, the SSBTs are completely different beasts from FOBTs. They are simply betting terminals with shitter odds than at the counter or on less liquid markets (also at shit odds), and crucially, you won't lose your stake in a matter of seconds. Even betting on a dog race, you have to wait 5 minutes. This really matters when you consider losses on FOBTs are essentially impulse bets.

 

[Arthur]

Firstly, this idea of betting shops being social hubs for one - there are certainly a handful of punters who treat them as such, but linking social mixing to a gambling outlet is surely not healthy. Regardless, the FOBT changes won't affect those who like to meet and study form on the dogs and horses before jizzing their money on stupid yankee and trixie bets.

They will if those shops no longer exist and its likely to be the non town centre shops that will cop a lot of the brunt.

They will simply stop those who spend their time sitting on a stool in the corner pumping their money into FOBTs and then chasing the inevitable losses before losing everything in double quick time. With £2 a bet rather than £100 a bet, it's far easier to encourage and indeed expect people to take responsibility for their actions. If you lose £500 after pouring in £2 a spin on a machine with typical expected value of 95%, it will take you hours. You can easily turn round and say "didn't it occur to you at some point to stop as you saw your money steadily disappear"

Whats to stop those people getting their mobile phone out of their pocket and playing roulette, blackjack, spins or whatever for an awful lot more than £100 a go?

Secondly, the SSBTs are completely different beasts from FOBTs. They are simply betting terminals with shitter odds than at the counter or on less liquid markets (also at shit odds), and crucially, you won't lose your stake in a matter of seconds. Even betting on a dog race, you have to wait 5 minutes. This really matters when you consider losses on FOBTs are essentially impulse bets.

Of course they are I wasn't making any comparison between the two other than there is no legislation to prevent the number of machines in a retail outlet currently. I was simply pointing out that job loses in the retail sector would happen regardless of todays announcement. All it has done is hurry things along.

Its a short term kick in the balls for the bookmakers and not the silver bullet to cure problem gambling and some believe it to be.