blonde poker forum

Is that an acceptable abbreviation for those ghastly roulette Machines in the bookies?

I have heard rumours that there is going to be further legistlation coming into play with these bandits in the coming months.  My source who is involved in politics has heard this from someone pretty senior within the Lib Dems (take from that what you like) 

Got me thinking though, I thought these machines basically covered costs for high st books, what do they do now?  What sort of impact will this have on their shares?  Now might be a time to punt them even at a loss ifthe above is true. 

Are there any competitors online who will benefit from this move?  Might be worth trying to mop up a few shares in those companies. 

was just walking home, heard my name called and it was ex manager of local bookies. now a cabbie since paddypower took over his shop.

we had a chat about this exact thing.  he told me how he is so glad to be out of there due to spending all day watching people (some that he considered good friends) ruin their lives playing these machines. he said his shop , which is in a quietish high street (surbiton) took 35k a week. i knew they take a lot but that surprised me.

i think bookies are allowed max of 4 machines per shop. no problem lets open another one 3 doors up. 4 more machines.

we all make our own choices in life so its easy to say if you are mug enough to gamble what you cant afford then deal with it.however the people i see that sit on these parasitic games are in general not the same people that enjoy a tenner on the 1.40 at kempton. i know people that play these that NEVER  bet on sports.

point being, any legislation that is brought in is competely futile. time limits per customer lol. machine says you have played half hour so you must stop.ok, i promise not to play a different machine. set your limits before you play. right on jon.

only reason there are high streets with more bookies than any other trader, is these horrible machines that the government take there 20% from. anybody who thinks any new legislation concerning FOBTS is anything other than  a compete smokescreen that allows the cash to keep getting piled in to the industry must be mad.

Not sure any legislation would be futile.  You could reduce the max stake, increase or change the duty further, use facial recognition to auto impose cooling off times etc.  I personally don't think any of these things should be done but they could be.

Max stake is what I have heard is being reduced to £20 a spin.  I think its upto £250 in some places most  I have seen in my area is a £100.  But its a massive reduction. 

I work in the city centre and the traffic I see at lunchtime in the local Joe's is alarming there is one guy who must do chunks every lunchtime - his blood pressure must increase 10 fold when in there as all he does is shout at the machine, claim its rigged (no shit) near smashes the glass.  The manager who I am pretty friendly with is targeted on getting people in playaing these machines and when the Area Manager is in he's salivating at the mouth over new punters punting roulette offerring them free tea, coffee, juice etc.  Yet I ca't get any more than £25 e/w on an early priced race and unlikely that you will get more than £50 a win on a BAGS meeting.

Like Bagel says I see numerous people who don't punt sports in playing these machines at all time of the day and I find it alarming.  Especially given that you can lose a £100 a minute.  People don't seem to understand that even although to start with Roulette is a game of chance it is also a puggy machine in disguise so your never going to beat it.   I might be well off here but I would much prefer my chances of punting roulette in a casino were there is more "randomisation" about where the ball lands.  Sometimes when the croupier gets lazy at the end of the shift you start to see patterns of where the ball is going ie within certain sections of the wheel - now while this is never guaranteed it creates a more favourable balance compared to the odds the house starts with and is certainly a better proposition than trying to beat a machine. 

Personally I used to play these machines a lot when they first came out and there were glitches with them were numbers followed certain sequencies but that all seems to have ironed out now and I don't think you can beat them.  I am 100% against the  B&M shops having them and the same can be said for Cartoon Racing.  I can't believe that you can get a £100 on a cartoon but ask for £100 on the 1:45 at Newmarket and your onto plums. 

Should bookies also be responsible and inform people wanting to have a bet on Man United to win at home that the price is too short because of money in from Asia, so they'd be losing money long term?

What about informing anyone backing a horse in the 1:45 at Newmarket at 20/1 in first time blinkers that doesn't stay and has had a late jockey change, so really has a 1% chance of winning at best? Should they still take bets?

Oh and Mrs Duckworth comes in with her pension money and wants to bet the lot on Turtle Dove in the 11:08 at Hove because they are her favourite birds and she bets anything with the initials TD. It's 4/1 but the bookies have a 120% book. Should they warn her?

It's all essentially probability, isn't it?

Facetiousness aside, I think it's important to put across the other side of the argument and remember that the odds of winning on a roulette terminal long term aren't very different from betting on the horses for the vast majority of people. Yes, there needs to be some level of responsibility on the patron's part to those who visit, just as a landlord of a pub should be able to say "Don't you think you've had enough, sir?"

For some people, gambling is a symptom of a much bigger problem, just as for others it is eating too much, self harm or sleeplessness. To make FOBTs or Bookies out to be the bad guys is simplistic, when there is a much wider concern about how people cope with stress and how society treats those with addictions.

It doesn't mean there shouldn't be limits on spending, so I'm not disagreeing with you or anyone else, but it's a difficult balance to reach between corporate responsibility and a free market.

It's highly unlikely FOBT betting limits will be changing any time soon. The last stakes and prizes review went through in January and this typically happens every three years. Bookies are allowed 4 machines max from cats B2-D. Typically you will see 4 B2 machines (FOBTs) which are max stake £100, max prize £500.

Now whilst I agree that no-one is forcing people to gamble I also think there should be protection in place. The latest thing is the screen pops up saying "You've been playing for 30 minutes. Do you want a break" or "You have played £100". This helps no-one and has been implemented purely to look like they're tackling the problem.

Games such as roulette I feel should be restricted to licensed casinos. It seems wrong to me that such games are available so readily on the high street.

There's also the fact that most bookies are to be found in poorer areas. Sometimes with the same bookie across the road to circumvent the 4 machines per shop limit.

But at the end of the day the government makes a fuckton in tax from it so until the time comes that sufficient pressure to get rid of them occurs don't expect anything to change soon.

Oh and to address Tal's point. Yes, of course placing a bet in a bookies is -EV. It has to be otherwise they would go out of business.

But there's only so much damage someone can do placing bets behind the counter.

The speed at which you can lose money on one of machines and how easy they make it to do it can be down right frightening.

http://centrallobby.politicshome.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/a-cap-on-fobt-stakes-could-benefit-horse-racing/

If you read this i wouldn't be so sure about big changes coming to FOBT's much sooner than you think.  This independent report basically says everything the bookies say about them is bullshit and it would actually increase employment in the economy, rather than cost 40000 jobs, which is what the big 4 firms are spouting.  These firms are seriously under the cosh.  They are doing whatever it takes to keep these machines running.  Shop windows are plastered with gamble responsibly - knows your limits now.  Inside a coral shop today on a screen was the message 'enough is enough - save your local bookie' which was comical and obviously related to the FOBT's.  Redarmi said on hills shop radio commentary today they were asking shop punters to sign a petition to make sure FOBT's don't get banned.  You really can't make it up how desperate they are becoming.  They haven't cared about any of this for the past 13 years whilst they keep collecting mountains of cash.  The only reason they care now is because they know there is a very real chance the goose who lays the golden egg might be about to die.

I don't really understand this point of view.  What difference does it make?  If anything casino's are worse than betting shops.  When was the last time you saw anything like the responsible gambling message that is so prevalent in bookmakers now in a casino.  Nobody ever asks you if you want to take a break from the blackjack table or roulette wheel in a casino.  I understand that the number of spins etc can present a problem but you are either going to let people gamble or you aren't.  At the end of the day pretty much all these things are random number generators.  There isn't actually any difference between turning over 10k on 100 spins of a FOBT and having the same bet on "hopeless harry" in the virtual racing at 25/1 yet nobody is suggesting they change that.  It is just an easy target for politicians to seem community spirited.  Does it ruin lives?  Yeah no doubt but then so does smoking, eating fast food and having ten pints down your local every other night.

I'm not saying casinos are perfect but they present a few advantages:

- Less of them
- Visiting one might involve going out of your way or having it be a special occasion
- Self exclusion (You can self exclude from a bookies but it's so comically unenforced)
- As you touch upon less spins per minute
- Less chance of going to one with a spare tenner (You see this a lot. Punter walks in with not a great amount of money but that was presumably intended for something else. 5 minutes and a few punches of the machine later it's gone.)


On the community aspect there's also the point of walking down a high street these days you're going to see massive banners for the latest roulette or slot or cash match or whatever the bookies want to advertise. In some places it's pretty impossible to miss these. Add to that the fact every second advert on TV these days seems to be betting related and people's exposure to betting is going to be high.

There is a point being missed here. Never mind FOBT's, you surely all know that there are any number of Online Slots sites, & they do, collectively, a HUGE amount of business. (MUCH more than FOBT's). They are open for Business 24/7, & operate even faster than FOBT's.

So, if you kill all the FOBT's in High St Bookies, punters will simply switch to Online Slots. I don't know for sure, but I would have thought most Online Slots sites are owned by, or tied to, Online Sports Betting/Poker/Bingo sites. 

I don't really have a view either way on the whole matter, but discussing how we control FOBT's without including Online Slots in the debate is a bit futile, imo.

Agree with that

Cant quite see how the petition in shops will work out though.

"Hi Dave Sorry you have done a few hundred on the machine again for the 188th day running but before you go....."

I watched a homeless guy, barefoot and dressed in rags, begging for change before bringing it in to Fred Done's machines and leaving empty handed. Watching this pathetic spectacle repeat itself several times over the course of an hour made up my mind about FOBT's. Quite right that the responsible gambling messages are a joke and show how justifiably scared the bookmakers are of further restrictions.

But FOBT's do it much quicker! Cigs probably cost £8+ a pack of 20 most smokers probably smoke 1-2 packs a day, maybe a tenner a day on fast food for fatties and a daily ten pint drinker is looking at £30-£50 quid . The same person doing all three in a day has just spent £70-£100 (if he buys his mates a drink) now add in a trip to the bookies and that same person could be down ten times as much within an hour or two (especially if the pubs next door).

I've had a spin of these machines and can see how someone without control can do their nuts. The only enjoyment that comes out of these is when you win, which unfortunately is the lucky few.

Apropros nothing really, but can you imagine Las Vegas without slot machines?

I believe there are just shy of 200,000 of them, & the casinos never close.

I would ban fruit machines, FOBTs and virtual racing.

There is something that doesn't sit right with me that allows a corporate to create a rigged game that has the sole purpose of extracting money from a weak minded punter.  If you want a rigged game, then go to the casino, where at least it has a bit of theatre, and more importantly it's a hassle for someone to go there.

Bookies have their place (and I love a bet as much as the next man) but restrict their offerings to "real" events.  If there is no horse racing on a particular day, then close the shop.

Obviously this is tongue in cheek coming from me but everything in moderation gentlemen ;)

And if they really must have them then make the betting duty 80% so the bookie gets only a small margin by having them, and the Government gets a wad of cash back so it can dole it back out to some poor sod who can't work because he's addicted.

The State should give more money to people with a gambling addiction? Bit of a slippery slope that, is it not?

But they'll give it to them either way Tikay.  Better it goes back to government than to a bookie, if the person in question is incapable of performing any useful labour.  Aren't all the bookies in some Euro countries state controlled?  Assume this is the same principal.

I'm assuming here that someone who does their pods on a daily basis on FOBTs isn't of sounds mind to hold down a normal job and gets benefits anyway (which may not be the case to be reflection).

Can't see any negative to increasing duty though.  Anything that incentivises bookies to focus on real horse racing is a plus in my book.

OK, lets assume all FOBT's in LBO's are banned.

Are we then going to ban Online Slots? Online Slots are a FAR bigger revenue source than those in LBO's, by a factor of many.

You seen the TV adverts recently, with all the major Sports Betting Sites advertising Roulette, via Desktop & even Mobile now?

Fine, go ahead.

Guess who will pay in the long run? Yup, the punters. Bookies aint gonna be absorbing extra tax any time soon, they'll do what all businesses do - pass it on somehow.

Yes I would - but that would be much harder to enforce.

My position is that artificial games should be the realm of the bricks and mortar casino only.

I don't mind bookies fleecing punters, but I want a bit of theatre.  Like a never ending Betfred advert.

Online slots maybe a bigger source of revenue but it's probably loads of rich whales skewing the figures- the reason fobts are so bad are because they target the common working man, can't bet big enough to ever win a significant amount and just fritter away your money everytime. £300 to the average joe in a betting shop far more harmful for him than rich whale doing 50k on online slots

Hard to do -  every extra pound they take from the punter in FOBT they would have to hand 80% to HMRC.  Betting duty is a hard tax to pass on or avoid (I think).  Surely this would just drive them to other activities which still attract betting duty at 15% or 3%?  

The argument that FOBT's being banned will simply transfer the cash to online slots doesn't stand up for me for several reasons and it helps to prove FOBT's punters in general are potentially the most exploitable and vunerable people in society .  Playing online slots involves a number of factors which are not required to play FOBT's in LBO's.  Firstly you need a laptop/PC/iphone.  I would imagine the bottom 10% of society still don't have access to these.  Secondly to play online slots you also need a bank account.  Again for the vast majority of people this seems a totally standard thing to have however around 5m people in this country don't have a bank account.  Thirdly even if you have a bank account and laptop you still have to find some way of feeding your habit through your bank account without your partner finding out via bank statements and actually sit down somewhere (with a wifi connection) to actually play these FOBT games without anyone else realising what you are doing.     It's these 5m people in society who are potentially exploited the most by FOBT's and i think the sooner they are banned the better.

Another reason to ban them for me is the amount of money laundering that goes on through them from drug dealers who have openly admitted in the press recently that they use FOBT's to clean their money and are happy to do the 2.75% margin to the firms to provide this service.  ie putting £50 red £50 black and £2.75 on zero for every spin.  Again these fobt 'customers' are also not going to convert to online slots for obvious reasons.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-machines-drug-money-laundering-bookies

That seems fair comment.

I was just trying to bring some balance though - banning FOBT's in LBO's won't cure everything.

I'm not arguing with you though, I'm not that brave, I leave that to Dear Adzy.  He sent me a note overnight, chuffed to bits with the Arsenal win, & Everton loss, "with any luck Wenger will stay on now" was the gist of it.

The amount of adverts for online casinos, online betting, online bingo, etc on tv is pretty terrible. Should go the same way as tobacco IMO and be banned.

Obviously banning them won't cure every problem but i think it would help solve the biggest current problem gambling issue and stop undesirable's having an easy route to clean their cash amongst other things.

As for Adz i think i laid him the following bet last night on Arsenal winning the league.  Only big adz could actually believe arsenal can still win the league!

Arsenal  1000   £6.50   £6,493.50  

I agree in some ways.  I was talking to someone who doesn't work in the gambling industry who came round to see me last night and we were watching TV and he just casually said the same thing.  I do sometimes wonder what people outside of the gambling world think about the current bombardment of gambling adverts effectively out of nowhere in the past 3/4 years.

the problem i have with FOBTs is the people who are predisposed to them, purely by being in a bookies. Maybe having a bet on the national or a tip. They then have a £5er in and its utterly addictive. At least people who go to a casino actually know what they are getting when they get there.

agree with trigg on this.  I know people in shops close to me who are £5 or £10 punters race by race.  Have been for years and years.  Lose every year. blah blah blah but its their hobby/social life etc.  Several of these haven't had £100 bet in their life in 20/30/40 years of punting over the counter yet several have just turned into FOBT junkies in the last few years.  It's a totally diff beast that punting on the high st has never seen.

Tikay, from later this year there will be big change to online betting, including slots when I falls under UK Gamblng Commission control.

Everything in the world of gambling is being reviewed, including advertising, stakes, operator/developed/test house licensing, and more.

I can only comment on online and FOBT slots, as that's the field I work in, but there's a big focus on fair and open gambling at all times. The rules of the games are clearly stated, as are the RTPs. No game cheats the player or manipulate results. There are no false near misses shown or wins thrown away. Everything is completely random and thoroughly independently tested.

Play or don't play, it's your choice, and if you lose control over that choice and it becomes a compulsion, seek help.

Banning FOBTs to prevent gambling problems is like banning only Whisky and expecting it to reduce alcoholism in the population.

Saying "seek help" to these people seems a cop out by the industry to me.

The fact is the poor addicted guy can do himself far more damage standing at his FOBT as opposed to having £10 on each race on the card in the bookies.

In that example banning Whiksy will stop Whiskey only drinkers from drinking therefore it will reduce alcohol problems in the population.  It won't solve all the problems but it will help.  Banning FOBT's will reduce problem gambling within the poorest and most vunerable sectors of society.  That's fact.  For many of these people they don't have access to bank accounts/internet access and deal in cash.  Therefore to fund their roulette habit they will have to find a casino, stroll up to it suitably attired, join and give ID in order to enter (which many illegally in this country with no bank account who operate in cash only) won't be able to provide.  It will not stop every roulette punter from switching from FOBT's to casino gambling but believe me it will have a major impact.  

Hi Adam,

Well yes, you should know that I'm only too aware of that, believe me! It's a major focus for Online Gaming sites at present.

For clarity in the debate, both Adam & I have a conflict of interest here, as we both have business connections related to Online Slots.

I have not debated for or against, I just think that focussing on FOBT's in LBO's is a bit of a narrow base for discussion.

Is that still true?

I can walk into many UK casinos without being a Member, having ID on me, reporting to Reception, or signing in.

Rendezvous Brighton, Aspers Stratford, Aspers Newcastle, to name but three. 

It's true in those cases but the vast majority of casinos in the uk don't operate that policy which i personally think is a good thing.

Think it's only the case at Aspers Newcastle when it's really busy, so basically just during poker festivals, lolz I know.

Hippodrome let you in without membership too. Don't think it should be allowed.

Correct.

Let's not get too technical, but generally speaking there is not an obligation to "sign in", in most cases it is for admin or data-capture purposes.

To add balance to this the actual rules in 'walk in' casinos are as follows:  If you attempt to spend or cash out more than £1500 full ID will be required to do so.  I actually think this limit is too high and should be around £500.  The idea of walk in casino's is so casual £20/£50 'saturday night' punters can have a spin up/drink/meal without having all the hassle of signing up etc.  Reducing the limit would also reduce the ability of people to launder money whilst not stopping any of the normal staking 'saturday night' punters from having a total hassle free experience in a casino.

Also if you look under 30 you will probably get ID'd on the door.

Tikay have you not had this issue before? ;)

Was hugely annoying when casinos ditched the compulsory membership - the Empire on Leicester Square was a great spot for a quiet late drink on a Saturday night - when they let walk-ups in it got rammed like everywhere else.

I bet the management are happy.

I don't think using whisky is a great example.  It is more like banning special brew type beers and ciders.  It might not have a huge overall effect but it will reduce the impact on the most vunerable and make their lives a bit more manageable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607329/75-voters-want-curb-100-spin-slot-machines.html

More media articles regarding FOBT's today albeit written by the horrible DailyMail who show pictures of pub fruit machines and call them FOBT's!

For balance, search out the UKGC's gambling prevalence studies.
No one is pretending there aren't problem gamblers, but the daily mail is not a good source for balanced information:-)

That's pretty much my opinion.  I've been hassled in every bookies I have been in this last week to sign their "enoughs enough" petition! When you question them about the petition its comedy to see some of the responses.  When you give them a bit of info about taxation etc they back track and change their patter while your in the shop.

I can't wait until I am back in a few weeks and go in a shop for a bet and they ask me to sign it.  I will wait to see if they will lay me a bet before signing.

I think it's more about educating people about gambling earlier in life that is key. We all understand -EV situations because we either play poker for a living or it's our favourite pastime. So we come across lots of poor betting decisions every day and decline to take them many many times during a game of poker.

Some people just don't get it. I have told a mate last week who I felt could have problem playing FOBTs "35/1 about a 36/1 shot every 20 seconds does not sound great over an hour, does it"?

He just went on about zero coming in a lot in some shop along the road. They should have classes at school to explain margins and house edge so people understand it's a punt, not a means of income. He actually thinks he can beat the game and does not get the concept I am trying to get across?  Is that delusion or is this a hard aspect to grasp? Another mate punts like fuck on anything he thinks he is at least 50/50 on (buckaroo game in pub or random seat last longers in tourneys) but he would never play any house game or FOBT. So it's not the gambler aspect of the problem gambler it's the fact they think they can beat the game. Is this all rubbish?

Lessons in school on gambling is rubbish tbf!  Never going to happen in a million years. 

why is it rubbish?

doubt gouty is talking about teaching 6 year olds the perils of not doing a lucky 15.

aimed at sixth formers ie 16 or 17year old i think its a good idea even if it was just discussed as part of a maths lesson.

pretty sure it would be more useful than learning how to work out the area of a circle.

90% of kids in a standard 6th form college will never place a bet in their life anyway.  make that 99.5% for the girls. 

so what you are saying is that it would be useful for 10% of the average sixth form college. which is an awful lot of people nationwide.

glad we agree on something.

I think if something like that is going to be put into education it will be something along the lines of what Martin Lewis is campaigning for, financial education regarding loans/mortgages/budgeting etc which would clearly benefit 100% of kids.  The chances of gambling being taught ahead of this which ML has been campaigning for years for are literally zero.

Probability is taught in secondary schools.

Topics such as EV though don't really come up until A Level. GCSE stuff even at A* level is quite basic. Grade C stuff is laughably straightforward.

The reason for this is probably that most kids really struggle with it. A lot of adults do to come to that. Hence you've got your friend there who just doesn't get that he can't beat the game.

Moving off in tangents but education is certainly key to stopping kids becoming addicted to these machines. I am all for what Martin Lewis has been trying to do, it just makes so much sense on many levels. 

I'd also say that Arbboy has pretty much nailed it throughout this thread with his take on it.  I wanted to make very similar points but I have been on the couch with a hangover all day.  Not conducive for writing wordy replies. 

Ban whisky imo.

(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/760/085/applause-gif-tumblr-47_original.gif?1363040789)

On the Rocks?

Some people just don't get it.

My brother probably wastes on average 50 quid a week on them, however I know sometimes he's done a few hundred in a day. You would think that with me being essentially a professional gambler, he would listen to my advice.  He doesn't and comes with the same rigged, I have a system etc nonsense.  Just given up trying. My cousin is the exactly the same too.  

My brother is single and has no real responsibilities, and at 23 there is a chance it's just being young and foolish so I hope he grows out of it.

My cousins addiction makes me far angrier as he has a GF, mortgage and a 4 year old and the money he wastes directly affects their future. I just can't understand it.

too good.  Redarmi might not get that not being into the dramatics of the wwe

Ha!

It wasn't even the hard stuff, I'd been off the booze for Lent. 7 pints of Perroni and two French martinis later I was a wreck!

How exactly did this thread get so seamlessly from gambling addiction to alcohol addiction?

They go hand in hand for me hence my entrance on the diet thread!  Been an addict of both for 20 years!

Martin Lewis come up with anymore free money laying systems of late?

If these FBOT's was ever to be banned, would it be the end for your high street bookie? It has to be a very close call for them

I created a similar thread about doing my balls in on them a year or so! Still have a problem with them to be honest & it's weird to understand why I suppose. Perhaps love to see a smaller limit of them in shops though, surely can be decreased from 4?

I think I lost something like £800 in about 45 minutes in one of them the week before I went to Vegas in February. It really did piss me off because until then I was having a good profitable week & looking foward to Vegas obv, the £800 severely affected my Vegas budget! Anyway I lose the money & I go upto the counter to get a dog/horse bet on and the young lady asks for my ID after I had been stood on the machine for a fair period of time? I am like WTF?

Personally love to be barred from using these machines though - Obviously pretty much impossible.

Don't believe the hype.  They might close some that have been situated near other shops to get over the 4 machines per shop rule but you aren't going to see shops disappearing anytime soon.

I don't think people think they can beat the game.

I'm happy occasionally smashing into the spreads on a snooker match for example, even though I might be several hundred down before the game even starts due to the wide bid offers.  I understand the true transaction is that I am purchasing adrenaline and if I value that adrenaline shot at £300 then I'm happy to trade as it's still a +EV transaction for me, even if not financially.  Fortunately I understand that too much adrenaline will be very expensive.

I think most people who bet with the bookies know they don't have the best of it.

Wrong.

You (and 99% of us on here) obviously understand EV.

The majority of the population do not.

They'll have certain sections of the wheel, devise a system, play on a machine that hasn't paid out in a while, etc. All in the belief that they can somehow beat the game.

I don't think people think they can beat the game, I'd say people just want to get lucky. Think most punters know that you can't beat maths in the long run

That's the thing though. Hoping to get lucky and beating the game are essentially the same thing.

Long term maths won't be a consideration for the vast majority. They'll go in hoping to "get lucky" a few times and lose money in the long term without really realizing that it was inevitable. They'll then complain that they were "unlucky" when in actuality it's perfectly standard and carry on betting thinking their luck is due to change.

I don't think hoping to get lucky and beating the game are the same thing.  Beating the game is a long term concept.  Getting lucky is sticking £5 on a number at roulette, hitting it and walking away?  I'm pretty sure most people don't think they have a long term edge on the bookie but they don't care.  They might not process it in such clear terms, but effectively they are saying they are happy to lose in the long term because horse racing is their hobby and they derive value from that.  Of course on any given day they hope for the short term run good, but deep down they must know it is a hopeless quest.

Maybe I am giving people too much credit.

I can understand what you are saying, just like I think "bloody hell my number has got to drop in soon" when I'm hundreds in.

However I already know the game is not beatable, punters going to punt I suppose!

Anyone who thinks most people understand probability has never seen Deal or No Deal.

Fairly sure most people ITT know one/several/far too many people who have "a system". One particular person springs to mind whose family would tell me the lad has made a small fortune playing roulette online. He's really good at it. Never seems to lose.

We all know how the story ends and there's no way of rewriting it.

It all comes back to control. If you have that, you can enjoy the slow release of your disposable income. If not...

Love the Deal or No Deal concept.

Just stride on and give Noel numbers 1 to 5 for the opening boxes, then 6 to 10 for the next round.  No preamble.  Minimal dialogue apart from to be polite.  Just single numbers.   Dismiss the banker offers out of hand.  Then watch Noel trying to fill an hour or however long it is.

Julie's had three reds this week. She's due a blue.

I've lost three flips in a row with AK this week. I'm due a win.

Trap five hasn't won a race at Hove today. I'll back it in race ten.

Binocular hadn't won a single race at Hurdlewood Valley this week. I'll have him in the 3.28

The way this croupier spins it, it's come black, black, black, black. Got to be red now.

I've not even won a tenner in three months on the lottery. Not one number last week. Must be due a few quid soon.

CF do you honestly believe 99% of the posters on here understand EVNS?  I would strongly disagree with that tbh based on just what I have read. 

Thing is i understand EV.  You put me on DOND and i take £90k offer when i am left 1p and 250k.  Only because i am not in the habit of having £90k at odds on 5/3 on a coin flip every day. 

EV?

This is why DOND is so good though.  If you have any basic understanding of probability then it is obvious that the "correct" thing to do is what Dung wrote but the correct mathematical approach isn't the correct approach for almost anybody because they don't have infinite money so the concept of marginal utility comes into play because to the individuals the first 50k is worth more than the last 50k of the 250k on offer in terms of the difference it can make to your life.  It is probably sub optimal for almost anyone to gamble to win the 250k.  For example if you were left with a decision at the end and there was 1p and 250k left.  It is obvious that the correct offer for the banker to make in terms of ev is 125k and taking anything below that gives up EV but if you are skint with a mortgage, credit cards etc and he offers 100k then that 100k is a good offer even though you are effectively leaving 25k on the table because that 100k's difference to your lifestyle is significantly more valuable than the extra 150k would be and there are costs associated with not receiving it both financially and, potentially, emotionally.  Also as Arb points out almost nobody has the bankroll to be taking a 125k bets or whatever as to do that you would probably need a 2m roll or something.  If anything people probably gamble on DOND too much imo given their personal circumstances.

What's the minimum you take on DOND? 

Assuming a straight flip between 1p and 250k and knowing that you only ever get one shot at this (no smoothing variance over a sample size...) I think I'd have a hard time turning down £50k.

Which makes me a huge mug. But a mug with £50k :D

I think if I'm gonna be forced to find out what's in the box id need closer to £75k though.

Nut strat is obv to set yourself up from start as a 'pure numbers' guy who will only take a fair offer from the 'banker' (read: some producer) and although they are still gonna offer less than the pure EV shot you might get offered your 'edge'.

The other thing if you have £90k offer in the spot i said 250k or 1p and give up £35k in ev to take the deal i still think it's positive ev to take the £90k because if you pay off your credit cards and mortgage you will probably 'make or 'save' more than £35k in interest paid over the following 5/10 years so it's still a positive ev spot imo over the longer term.  This obviously doesn't factor in piece of mind of not having debt's etc etc which are much harder to put a value on.

As for what number i would take i think i would be pretty comfortable taking £60k in the 1p or 250k spot but i don't think you would ever need to go that low.

I have seen punters collect a ticket for £800 from a £20 stake and then shove the lot back in and the other score they had in their pocket at the outset. How much did he need to win to make him happy for £40?

The same people will get stuck 2k in live 1/1 ROE games then win it all back and carry on playing? Everyone else is sat with 200 or maybe a couple of nits with a monkey but even though that is -EV he will blow it all back. Do the gambling courses actually try to educate people about this? Like saying you are sat with 20 buy ins that you have bought lets get the fuck out of here?

I have worked in betting all my life apart from the last 4 months and I miss it loads. The Masters was painful to watch as it was always a big betting event and seemed not so much fun. I would say that 30,000 on the dole queue and 6,000 empty shops overnight would not be any politicians plan except Don Foster. It's his last term and he is gunning for these machines. Oh, and the treasury will get 800 million as well with the status quo.

Easily two thirds of shops will close and cripple a big lump of the stock market. It's fascinating. Big Campbell u turn coming soon or brushed under the carpet.

DOND derail entirely my fault. Sorry.

The nut strat IMO is to have an amount in mind that you'd be prepared to accept and take it the first time it's offered. If it doesn't go well, either adjust your figure or play on til the death. This isn't in the face of EV; it's taking all factors into account. If £25k would be a fantastic result for you, so what if you could have played on and won ten times more?

If you won £25k on roulette and the croupier then took a third of the wheel away on the £5k minimum stake wheel, would you carry on playing over there? If the answer is "Not on your nelly!", you're making the right decision in an elementary game theory sense. If your answer is "Outa my way! 8 and neighbours by a bag!", you're probably Dubai...and they'd never let him on DOND. Come to think of it, he's probably the Banker...

In the detailed report i actually posted it actually stated that banning fobt's would reduce unemployment over the whole economy and be a net creator of jobs (obviously the big 4 are not keen for this information to be well known and prefer to just focus on the 30,000 jobs that will be lost in their shops as to the general economy as a whole) as the money which goes in the tills of the big four would be much better spent elsewhere by the degen's and create much more labour intensive jobs than emptying roulette machines twice a day

There is literally no chance that 2/3rds of shops would close.  They haven't tripled since the introduction of fobts and whilst a few things have changed the firms aren't going to just start shutting profitable shops even if they are only marginally profitable.  The firms are scaremongering to protect profits and it isn't as though there is any chance that they will be banned.  They may be regulated tighter but that is probably all.

Don't think the banning of FOBTs would cause more than the merest of ripples on the market either.

Surely a hefty reduction in the maximum stake on roulette is the most likely scenario. Not a bad thing but obviously won't stop the slots addicts who plough just as much through the machines in a lot of cases. Which makes the whole exercise somewhat futile.

It would take 25% off ladbrokes share price overnight imo if they were banned completely.

You say "a few things have changed"?

I just closed a betting shop in December. There is no scaremongering. You need to take over 30k a week over the counter without fobts to make a shop pay. I would say not even 25% of shops take that.

They might do if they would actually lay a bet.  Tried to get £200 on Jose at 40/1 next manure manager today in a bald fred shop.  Hardly a small market and got offered a score.  They might have to go back to basics and do what they say on the tin and become 'bookmakers' again, employ quality odds compilers on decent 6 figure salaries rather than the scores of £25k a year 'loltraders' they currently employ and actually lay a bet even to people who might actually beat them once in a while.

but ladbrokes, hills etc are a tiny part of the stockmarket these days

the net effect on the economy would be positive, the spending would be channelled elsewhere and lets face it in the digitall world nowadadys shops are an anachronism

On budget day Hills dropped 6% on a 5% tax hike so imagine the drop if they were gone?

This is massive politically.

no, it isn't. really it isn't.

why is it massively politically? The report stated the economy would be better off if the fobt's were banned.  More jobs would be created overall than would be lost and far less social problems caused.  It sounds like a perfect vote winner to me for 99% of the population who don't gamble.  What am i missing?  

Because no government will ever look at the long term that way and turn down the revenue.

they will make way more revenue long term with VAT/employers/ee's NI/income tax/corporation tax from the spend elsewhere and have far less social problems to invest in.  Racing should also be much better off as much of the same spend will be spent on racing and the levy rather than just straight into the tills of these 'bookmakers' who won't lay a bet unless they have gtd 3% edge.

It is totally academic though because they will never shut them down completely and as for the idea that the shops need to take 30k a week without FOBT's that is assuming that non of the other providers make changes.  It is very likely that Turf TV, SIS, the Gaming Commission, the revenue etc would all lower prices rather than see 2/3rds of shops shut as you suggest because they would lose too much revenue.  Those costs have gone up because shops can afford them with the extra revenues from FOBT's.

No way of proving it, but if FOBTs being banned would really wipe 25% off Ladbrokes for anything even approaching a short term position then Laddies are fucked anyways.

Which they aren't, because it wouldn't.

I see. So the racecourses will not want their £6k a race from the betting shops anymore?  This is not how market forces work.

That doesn't work out as the biggest losers on fobts are not that interested in horses. I agree that it's great in the long term but still cannot see any govt. having the balls to try.

That is exactly how market forces work.  Do you really think that mssrs Glynn, Topping, Done and Hornby won't immediately look to renegotiate the levy if FOBT's are banned?  They will also be on the phone to SIS, Turf TV etc telling them that they will be shutting half their shops if they don't reduce their fees etc.  That is the whole basis of their campaign at the moment and if something is done about FOBT's then they will immediately look to renegotiate those contracts.  The whole point of closing shops etc is to reduce overheads but you don't only look at staffing and rents when assessing where you can make savings so it is inevitable that the other industries relying on betting will have to take a hit too and they will be expecting that.

Everyone in the racing/betting industry have effectively been subsidised by fobt's for the last 10 years even though the vast majority of products have nothing to do with fobt's the indirect money flying around the industry has come from fobt's.  The amount the Racing Post will be able to charge for adverts will fall if FOBT's get banned even though no firm has ever once used a RP advert to promote FOBT play.  Major race sponsorship by betting firms will fall for exactly the same reason.  That's just the way the industry works.

Well I disagree with all of that, however I respect your right to your opinion and agree that it ain't gonna matter anyway as the status quo will remain.

Looking at the bigger picture , what does everyone think about online casino's ?

The fob's are visible , you can see how much people are putting in , you can see the clustering of
betting shop's to accommodate the vulnerable in society.

What you do not see are the people at home , those with time on their hands , bored  , who would never
go in a bookies,  but because it's anonymous and in the privacy of their own home , can do £1000's and £1000's
in a very short time. There must be loads of horror stories where wealthy widow's have lost fortunes on gaming sites
chasing losses but the focus is purely on fobs and on Betting Shops.

Without doubt the bookies are just playing lip service to the Government and there are certainly issues with the
fob's but to tackle these without looking at online gaming is taking a one sided view.

On a practical level if the bookmakers were serious in dealing with this problem then they would not allow the fob's
to accept debit cards. I know of one instance where a £1 punter on the horses put £11k in a fob over 2 days before
barring himself. If the punter kept having to go to the bank to withdraw money I doubt he would have done his dough,
or at least not 11k and not in 2 days !

The horse has bolted as far as the fob's are concerned , a bit like betfair in a way ( Just think it's wrong that you can lay
a horse to lose , it's open to abuse ) , so would be very surprised if they were banned in any shape or form.

Would suggest around 10-15% of betting offices would close within 6 months if it did happen but just can't see the
Government giving up on all that revenue stream.

And don't get me started on those bloody adverts.......Game On  :redcard:

Personally I have played an online casino < 5 times lifetime.  First time was when I first played poker, clicking buttons on baldy when i never knew what i was doing and somehow managed to run £50 into £1100 in a few hours and then in minutes managed to dump off a grand playing roulette.  Other times  have been when i have been drunk and playing on a cardroom with a casino with a mixed degree of luck.  I never enjoyed it and found the music tilting. 

But I think Arbboy was spot on ITT earlier when he summed it up that the same people who do their nuts in the B&M's are less likely to have access to an online casino. 

Regarding the roulette machines in the bookies I haven't played them myself > 3 year. I generally use a variety of bookmakers to get my bets on during the day particularly if there is something running I like because I can't get more than £50 on any early price and I go for a walk around town to different books on lunch and stick a small lucky 15 on the BAGS but its the same faces, same types you see playing these machines. 

Apparently Hills are going to close shops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27153475

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/30/maximum-stake-fixed-odds-betting-terminals-restricted

the big 4 have basically got away scott free and can carry on as you were effectively.

The introduced measures are complete bullshit.

They'd have been as well doing nothing.

Hell, in some ways that would probably have come across better than the measures they've decided to impose.

They have effectively done nothing.  So you can only load £50 on instead of £100 unless you have an online account (wtf has that got to do with anything apart from them knowing if you are a winner or loser) or the staff in the shop agree to it.  Like they will ever not agree to it esp in balds when their bonus depends on it.  Plus if you have more than £100 in the machine already in credit you will be able to still bet £100 a spin as before.  Comical.  Nice to know the big 4 have the govt in their back pockets still.

They might have effectively done nothing but it still hasn't stopped the usual suspects moaning it in still.  Some of the quotes in todays holy ghost are laughably bleak considering they have just had the best result since Foinavon.

I am actually just sitting here reading the post and laughing at their negative comments.  Behind closed doors they must be rofl and high fiving each other how they have effectively got 'business as usual' signal from the govt.  When does this start?  Today?  I am going to go into a betting shop and just demand i can keep having £100 spins to the bird behind the counter just to see what they do and how many £100 spins they will allow before they 'look after' me and say 'no more sir'

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2847834/MARKET-REPORT-Gambling-bookmakers-future-risky-business-amid-calls-cap-wagers-controversial-fixed-odds-betting-terminals.html

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=LAD.L#symbol=LAD.L;range=2y

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ladbrokes-track-turnaround-takes-hold-091834525.html

How much lower can Ladbrokes' shares go?  The company is barely valued at £1bn now even though they own the best part of 10,000 fobts which generate close to £1000 per machine per week?  (That's £500m a year).  Would Ladbrokes even exist as a business if FOBT's were banned over night?

This is very funny if true.

https://twitter.com/Mattdhurley/status/536919209364946944

http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/adam-hurley-ladbrokes-man-hurley-bags-betting-shop-award/1779726/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/limit-crack-cocaine-gambling-machine-bets-to-2-say-councils-9877715.html

Ladbrokes finally bite the bullet and fire their clueless CEO.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/03/ladbrokes-chief-steps-down

Tikay will be happy his Ladbrokes shares might finally stop free falling!

Might be worth a small investment, I am not sure it is even remotely possible for them to get any worse than Glynn so you have to fancy the new guy can be a success when compared against Glynn therefore the market should react positively.

What was the Matt Hurley status?

Been deleted now.

Guy wins betting shop manager of the year working for ladbrokes.  On the same day his brother get's his ladbrokes account closed for winning!!!!!!  You couldn't make it up.

Must have been a spoof Twitter acct surely?

it looked a pretty real account tbh.