https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/if-there-was-ever-a-reason-to-curb-online-gambling-its-this/#post-10347606

No children are the responsibility of their parents, which is another thing people seem to be forgetting these days. As far as I can see there you need an iTunes account to fund the gambling, so one would assume parents should have some sort of control over the funding of that account.

Again its lets blame someone else rather than saying “What can I do to protect my children”

It’s true that we don’t ban food/alcohol/tobacco, but we DO put massive restrictions on the form and tone of advertising that can be used (or whether advertising can be used at all), seriously enforce age restrictions, and don’t allow coco-pops, vodka and ciggies to be piped into childrens bedrooms without their parents knowledge.

Any other silly comparisons to justify gambling as a business?

What do the “its the responsibility of the gambler” types feel about this from the Grauniad?

Still relaxed about it?

No children are the responsibility of their parents, which is another thing people seem to be forgetting these days. As far as I can see there you need an iTunes account to fund the gambling, so one would assume parents should have some sort of control over the funding of that account.

Again its lets blame someone else rather than saying “What can I do to protect my children”

Edit weird my quoting seems broken

Lovely response: “Its the parents fault”

Unless you are a blind libertarian, you can probably see that society has used many forms of laws and restrictions to protect itself (to a greater or lesser extent) from things that cause significant negative effects (smoking, drinking, drugs and (moreso in the past) gambling).

Its perfectly valid to ask for restrictions on things that cause generally bad effects on society, whether or not they affect certain individuals.

In many ways thats what society is for.

@eat_the_pudding How can a child get access to enough funds for gambling to be a problem?

If we tell someone they have a problem and they are addicted and can’t help it we, are basically saying there its beyond their control and they might as not bother.

If we tell them they are an idiot and just need to stop and show some respect for themselves and the people around them, we are telling the truth.

People gamble to try and get out of the hole they have gambled their way into, that’s not addiction. It would be better to educate people and explain how things like FOB machines work. Lets face it no one would play a game with me where they gave me £10 and I gave them £8 back if they knew that was the rules.

I think getting the message out “Gambling is a business to take money off you” would be better than pretending they have a medical condition.

But online gambling opens up so many more opportunities for gamblers to lose their money. An alcoholic or obese person can’t get their fix via the internet (at least not directly).

So its the internets fault? Lets ban the internet !

Gambling is not a normal business. Leaving legality aside drug dealers have equivalent or better moral justification.

Good comparison. Because thats another thing people get all preachy and sanctimonious and all ‘these people must be protected from themselves’ about.

When people talk about drug use, they immediately conjure up an image of some homeless hopeless heroine addict. But this represents a tiny minority of drug users. 99% of drug use though is people going out at weekends, necking pills, snorting coke, smoking weed, whatever, then getting on with their lives completely unaffected.

Gambling is the same. Most people, myself included open their app on a Saturday morning, stick a few quid on the days footy results, watch the footy with a little more interest, then acknowledge that you win some/you lose some (a universal truth)

The people stood feeding their entire wage into a fixed odds betting machine in the bookies are a tiny minority

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

Argh, not the “charities shouldn’t spend money on staff” dickheads again!<span class=”bbp-reply-post-date”>Posted 15 hours ago</span>

Do you always call people whos point of view differs from yours dickheads . Many people , me included would be more willing to give to charity if we knew how much was being swallowed up in ” administrative costs”

</div>

Its not difficult to find out.

My wife works for a charity. They get paid peanuts compared to the equivalent jobs in the private sector. She took a huge pay cut to go and work there. Thats typical throughout the whole sector

Hope thats cleared that up for you

Do you always call people whos point of view differs from yours dickheads . Many people , me included would be more willing to give to charity if we knew how much was being swallowed up in ” administrative costs”

http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/?q=cycling

Stick the charity name in there, click on documents, look at the annual report.

Let us know which charity you’ll be donating to.

bazzer and binners,

Inconveniently for you, I’m heavily in favour of letting adults make up their own minds (about drugs and anything else that directly harms no-one else).

But the point I (tried to) make with the grauniad article was that the liberalisation of gambling has got to the point where the advertising is becoming pervasive and is being seen by children.

Whether the children have the money to participate is irrelevant if they are being influenced by the advertising from a young age. They are all future customers, as learned and practised by the tobacco and alcohol advertising industries for years.

I’m NOT suggesting that gambling should be banned, and that you should be cruelly and heartlessly deprived of your occasional flutter, but that maybe the restrictions on advertising should either be tightened up or enforced more effectively.

PS If you think a quick chat with their parents will make children immune to pervasive advertising, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

From listening to the radio yesterday there’s no doubt in my mind it needs to start with

1. A total ban on all advertising – start with online and TV then move to all other media

2. An assessment of the gambling-like content and activities in computer games (that may not at any time involve real money) as it’s conditioning kids to have a punt which presumably has the potential to create mayhem when they turn 18

I’ve no issue with gambling remaining as a regulated industry unless it’s evident that the points above have zero impact in which case it’ll need to more heavily regulated.

@eat_the_pudding

I honestly don’t really care about the gambling industry, I am more bothered about the slide into protecting people to the point they can’t think for themselves. I am not trying to win a battle with you either so I am pleased you are anti the dumbing down of society.

PS If you think a quick chat with their parents will make children immune to pervasive advertising, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

A quick conversation no, but actually educating them properly would. We are all subject to the forces of marketing and advertising. That’s not going away any time soon. So preparing people to deal with it is the way forward, rather than trying to ban things. If you know how the trick works, its not magic anymore is it.

Because Bet365 is private owned, she’s also getting away with not disclosing how much of her business comes from China, unlike most of the other gambling firms, who declare this:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/nov/21/are-chinese-punters-big-users-of-bet365

I dont have a problem with this. She has made the moiney by being astute and taking the commercial risks. Just becuaes she doesnt have shareholders to pay means there is more for her. Yes she could pay her staff more rather than keep it for herself but her business is no more unsavory than tobacco,  and alcohol industries.

A quick conversation no, but actually educating them properly would. We are all subject to the forces of marketing and advertising. That’s not going away any time soon. So preparing people to deal with it is the way forward, rather than trying to ban things. If you know how the trick works, its not magic anymore is it.

@Bazzer your simplistic £8 for £10 argument would probably be enough to deter a large proportion of punters if, in fact, every time they spent a tenner they ended up with 8 quid.

As you well know the 80% return is effectively calculated over the lifetime of the game and the actual payouts per cash amount will vary tremendously, particularly as the cash amount considered gets smaller. Punters are chasing the times when they pay a tenner and walk away with hundreds. That’s the lure.

Matt

But online gambling opens up so many more opportunities for gamblers to lose their money. An alcoholic or obese person can’t get their fix via the internet (at least not directly).

And yet we still have drunks and obesity so that just proves that somebody with a gambling addiction is going to carry on gambling even if they have to visit a bookies to do it.

@matt_bl

IT would be quite easy to show though that they only got £800 back from the £1000 they have spent this year though 🙂 for the VAST majority of people.

The fact that the house CANNOT lose on FOB machines is different to the fact on other stuff its just UNLIKELY they are going to lose.

I think personally think calling people who lose more than they can afford (your’e safe binners) stupid, rather than addicted, would have better results in stopping it 🙂

If I was in her position, I’d pay myself that much too.

I have morals but nearly 1m a day is nearly 1m a day 😀

I dont have a problem with this. She has made the moiney by being astute and taking the commercial risks. Just becuaes she doesnt have shareholders to pay means there is more for her. Yes she could pay her staff more rather than keep it for herself but her business is no more unsavory than tobacco,  and alcohol industries.

This.

100% this.

The fact that the house CANNOT lose on FOB machines is different to the fact on other stuff its just UNLIKELY they are going to lose.

In the long term, the house doesn’t lose on any form of gambling, or there wouldn’t be many bookies around. Odds are calculated very carefully to ensure the house has a net return. FOBs have actually been used for money laundering, because criminals know that if they put enough money through the machine, they get a guaranteed return (90 to 97%, depending on the game you are playing).

If you play roulette on an FOB or in a casino, the odds are pretty much exactly the same. The problem with FOBs is that they are designed to encourage people to put money in as fast as possible, so someone with a problem is going to lose a bigger total sum.

If I was in her position, I’d pay myself that much too.

I have morals but nearly 1m a day is nearly 1m a day 😀

Well, there is this I suppose.

Edit- and I think this is why we need regulation really!

@kcr obviously the odds are calculated to make it very very likely the house will win. However real roulette is a game of chance though extremely unlikely it is possible for the house to lose. Statistically over time they won’t however it is possible.

FOB  machines on the other hand don’t payout until they have taken some money, the software is designed so its never behind. They can never lose money.

No one has to gamble, people can just do something else instead. The fact this woman has been successful because a lot of people enjoy gambling and a few people have gambled themselves into a hole and are daft enough to think the only way out is more gambling, makes her just cleverer than the people gambling 🙂

I don’t really think you’ve grasped the nature of addiction.

Meanwhile, many of you are overlooking an important point: while it’s a relatively small number of people ploughing hundreds of quid into the bookies every week compared to the number of people that will gamble over the course of a year, those core users are responsible for a huuuuuge proportion of their profit. The gambling industry could never survive on the money it makes from “normal” well-adjusted gamblers that do it for fun.

This isn’t like saying all pubs should close because some people are alcoholics. It’s like saying pubs shouldn’t be allowed to target alcoholics in selling increasingly strong alcohol 24 hours a day.

Statistically over time they won’t however it is possible.

So it’s not possible, but it is possible?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/d80d46eb-253d-4b99-ba60-caca6858d757

Addiction comes in many forms and we are not strong willed by and large. We all have a vice or a crutch be it alcohol, games, religion to help us get through. Some people will always take it too far.

@kcr I should have said statistically unlikely, however unlikely it is, it is actually possible for someone to bet on roulette every day of their life and never lose.

That’s not the case on a FOB it maintains the return on the amount of money put into it.

Kill the adverts for gambling, we’ve done it for fags and booze. This is a no brainer, surely. Less exposure for kids = less take up as adults.

Overpaid CEO, couldn’t really give a monkeys.

A good reason to ban snake oil bike parts.

Spending £500 on jockey wheels must subject so many to absolute misery.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ceramicspeed-shimano-9100-oversize-pulley-wheel-system-coated/

My 2p.  Gambling shouldn’t be banned, nor should alcohol, nor should tobacco.  And it would probably be better if (some) of the currently illegal drugs were legalised.  They should, however, all be heavily regulated and taxed, and the advertising controlled. Gambling is probably at the most lax end of the scale and I’d see it as a priority to impose much heavier regulation and taxes ASAP esp on online gambling.

I have no problem with her being rich, good luck to her, it is simply a fact of the structural problems the government has allowed to develop.

Errr, and my gambling is limited to putting 2p’s in the machines at the seaside!  I often win and end up putting it all back in so I don’t have to walk round with hundreds of 2p pieces!!!

If I was in her position, I’d pay myself that much too.

I have morals but nearly 1m a day is nearly 1m a day 😀

Well, when you put it that way it’s certainly a more tangible amount to realise.

Gambling is probably at the most lax end of the scale and I’d see it as a priority to impose much heavier regulation and taxes ASAP esp on online gambling.

Interesting that online gambling is an area where a business with no physical or legal presence in the UK is still required to pay UK tax.

“Remote Gaming Duty is charged at the rate of 15% of a gaming provider’s profits from remote gaming with UK persons.” (gov.uk)

Ok, 15% isn’t very high, but I imagine policing it can be quiet difficult.

I do not like gambling but I think the old men who go to the betting shop and gamble on horses probably enjoy it.

Online gambling on the other hand is dangerous with many kids addicted to it as well. The news quoted that in the there is 22000 people under 16 who are addicted to gambling.

If I were in her shoes, I’d empty out the piss that someone had put in them

Kill the adverts for gambling,

I am not sure what channel it is but at the local gym some of the tvs has a sports channel on. Adverts seem pretty much back to back gambling ones for one site or another.

Online gambling on the other hand

As I understand it (never really got gambling fortunately so am far from an expert) there is a serious problem with the local betting shops and FOBT machines which seem horrendous at exploiting addictive personalities.

Since politicians often get a hard time its worth praising Tracey Crouch for her determination on pushing action against them through and her principles in resigning (lets skip over the other politicians who forced her into it).

Like all vices some people will be able to handle it and get enjoyment out of it in return for their expenditure. A small amount of people may even profit from it. However, as with other vices there will be a dark aspect and that will spill over to affect the rest of us through crime or other social problems.

How much of that £265M has come from benefits or the proceeds of selling stolen goods and how much has come from legitimate and honest earnings? We will never know.

She is obviously a very astute business woman, no one can deny that and of that part I am jealous. I would like just a fraction of her success for my own business.