Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Fixed Odds Betting Terminal limits should be raised instead Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think this might be counter intuitive to some, but lowering limit is actually worse. Current it is £100 / minute max but could be set as low as £2 / minute max.

    Having a lower limit will mean punters playing longer, more likely to become addicted. Raising the limit or indeed minimum bets say 5 fold will mean people will lose their money much faster and hit rock bottom.

    Not much fun in that. And all addicts have to hit rock bottom before they can be helped, indeed before they will accept help. Raising the limit / floor will accelerate that process and be actually better in the long run. Make them learn very quickly that it's won't bring rhem joy.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldboy2007)
    Having a lower limit will mean punters playing longer, more likely to become addicted. Raising the limit or indeed minimum bets say 5 fold will mean people will lose their money much faster and hit rock bottom.
    That isn't how gambling addiction works at all. Do you really think someone starting out on these machines is immediately punting at £100 a go? Not likely. These things start out small, and then grow until the punter is well and truly hooked. Remember that these machines are specifically designed to encourage users to bet more and more.

    (Original post by oldboy2007)
    Not much fun in that. And all addicts have to hit rock bottom before they can be helped, indeed before they will accept help. Raising the limit / floor will accelerate that process and be actually better in the long run. Make them learn very quickly that it's won't bring rhem joy.
    You assume that rock bottom is having £0. That simply isn't true, gambling addicts often rack up tons and tons of debt, often taking advantage of short-term loan schemes (or rather, being taken advantage of by them). Raising the betting limit would only serve to increase the profits of the gambling industry, it would not help gambling addicts at all.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    That simply isn't true, gambling addicts often rack up tons and tons of debt, often taking advantage of short-term loan schemes (or rather, being taken advantage of by them). Raising the betting limit would only serve to increase the profits of the gambling industry, it would not help gambling addicts at all.
    You speak as though having limits on how much of their own money citizens are allowed to bet is the natural state of things, and also as though all users of betting machines (and short-term loan services) are somehow duped into using them.

    I'm sorry, but, as far as people misusing betting and loan services is concerned, their problems are not a good enough reason for the state to interfere so heavily with the rest of us as is presently proposed.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    You speak as though having limits on how much of their own money citizens are allowed to bet is the natural state of things, and also as though all users of betting machines (and short-term loan services) are somehow duped into using them.
    These machines are literally designed to get people addicted to gambling. Their entire purpose is to take punters for all they're worth and then some.

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I'm sorry, but, as far as people misusing betting and loan services is concerned, their problems are not a good enough reason for the state to interfere so heavily with the rest of us as is presently proposed.
    Gambling addiction ruins lives, tears families apart and causes a lot of societal issues (like crime, for example, plus economic imbalance) as a result.

    If you are of the opinion that the state should not intervene to make society better then I doubt I can say anything that will persuade you otherwise. Yet still, allowing these machines free reign is not going to help anybody except Ladbrokes shareholders. TBH, I don't see why the country should be forced to suffer just to line the pockets of a few executives.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    These machines are literally designed to get people addicted to gambling. Their entire purpose is to take punters for all they're worth and then some.



    Gambling addiction ruins lives, tears families apart and causes a lot of societal issues (like crime, for example, plus economic imbalance) as a result.

    If you are of the opinion that the state should not intervene to make society better then I doubt I can say anything that will persuade you otherwise. Yet still, allowing these machines free reign is not going to help anybody except Ladbrokes shareholders. TBH, I don't see why the country should be forced to suffer just to line the pockets of a few executives.
    It's personal weakness, they need to take responsibility for their own actions. Prohibition on gambling doesn't really work in places that have tried it. It seems to be in some part of the human psyche.

    It is not the State's duty to not let you bankrupt yourself gambling or ruin your life, only that once you do so, you will commit no crimes that will impact the rest of society. And heavily punish those that do.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldboy2007)
    It's personal weakness, they need to take responsibility for their own actions. Prohibition on gambling doesn't really work in places that have tried it. It seems to be in some part of the human psyche.

    It is not the State's duty to not let you bankrupt yourself gambling or ruin your life, only that once you do so, you will commit no crimes that will impact the rest of society. And heavily punish those that do.
    So actually you're not interested in helping gambling addicts at all, I see.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    So actually you're not interested in helping gambling addicts at all, I see.
    No, I'm interested in protecting the rest of society against their actions. The people they may rob, the betting shop workers they may terrify, the criminal damage they may cause.

    If they lose their lifesavings and don't commit any crime or anti social behaviour and can continue to look after their children if they are parents then there is no problem.

    Otherwise the state will need to intervene.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    So actually you're not interested in helping gambling addicts at all, I see.
    It's like the state has no interest in looking after Amy Winehouse, she was a rich celebrity that could fund her addiction without costing the rest of society. Her money, her body, her choice.

    The state should crack down heavily of course on homeless drug addicts that affects the rest of society negatively.

    I understand if you think that's cold hearted. But as I grow older and I see the world, I increasingly feel less emotion and empathy. We do what we must all do, no more, no less.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You cannot 'gamble responsibly' on a machine with £100 spins.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    they should be forced to include a function where the machine laughs hysterically every time the punter loses
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezisola)
    You cannot 'gamble responsibly' on a machine with £100 spins.
    You can if you're Wayne Rooney. Clearly most punters aren't, and they can set a lower bet. It's them being irresponsible, they are presented with a choice and they made the wrong one.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldboy2007)
    It's like the state has no interest in looking after Amy Winehouse, she was a rich celebrity that could fund her addiction without costing the rest of society. Her money, her body, her choice.

    The state should crack down heavily of course on homeless drug addicts that affects the rest of society negatively.

    I understand if you think that's cold hearted. But as I grow older and I see the world, I increasingly feel less emotion and empathy. We do what we must all do, no more, no less.
    So as I understand it then, you reckon the best way to deal with the problems of addiction is essentially wait until it gets out of hand and then "crack down", instead of working on preventionist measures? Even from a cold, utilitarian standpoint that's a pretty foolish idea, gambling addicts negatively impact the economy and they are more prone to cause other societal issues if there is no-one to help them or to intervene.

    The cost of such measures are far less than the cost of dealing with the outcome, or to put it simply, prevention is better than cure. Coming back to the FOBTs in particular, lowering the maximum bet is an incredibly easy, cheap bit of regulation the government could implement, which in turn would almost certainly benefit the UK as a whole.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    So as I understand it then, you reckon the best way to deal with the problems of addiction is essentially wait until it gets out of hand and then "crack down", instead of working on preventionist measures? Even from a cold, utilitarian standpoint that's a pretty foolish idea, gambling addicts negatively impact the economy and they are more prone to cause other societal issues if there is no-one to help them or to intervene.

    The cost of such measures are far less than the cost of dealing with the outcome, or to put it simply, prevention is better than cure. Coming back to the FOBTs in particular, lowering the maximum bet is an incredibly easy, cheap bit of regulation the government could implement, which in turn would almost certainly benefit the UK as a whole.
    The best way is actually for the government to nationalize the gambling industry. People will pay their taxes and then some. But people will never go for that.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    These machines are literally designed to get people addicted to gambling. Their entire purpose is to take punters for all they're worth and then some.

    Gambling addiction ruins lives, tears families apart and causes a lot of societal issues (like crime, for example, plus economic imbalance) as a result.

    If you are of the opinion that the state should not intervene to make society better then I doubt I can say anything that will persuade you otherwise. Yet still, allowing these machines free reign is not going to help anybody except Ladbrokes shareholders. TBH, I don't see why the country should be forced to suffer just to line the pockets of a few executives.
    Yes, the purpose of gambling machines is to get people to spend their money on gambling. That's sort of how markets work. You can then decide to give them all, or some of, your money, or not.

    Individuals betting sums of money they can't afford to lose indeed causes a lot of problems for those around them, but it is not the state's function to protect people from the consequences of their own actions or to get involved in their private financial or social arrangements. In addition to which the law interferes even with those who gamble sensibly.

    Giving these machines free reign benefits the majority of punters who are quite capable of making sensible decisions about how much they can afford to bet, but who are nonetheless finding themselves being told what they may or may not do with their own money.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Individuals betting sums of money they can't afford to lose indeed causes a lot of problems for those around them, but it is not the state's function to protect people from the consequences of their own actions or to get involved in their private financial or social arrangements. In addition to which the law interferes even with those who gamble sensibly.
    We'll have to agree to disagree here I think. I would define the state's purpose is to ensure its citizens' have a good quality of life.

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Giving these machines free reign benefits the majority of punters who are quite capable of making sensible decisions about how much they can afford to bet, but who are nonetheless finding themselves being told what they may or may not do with their own money.
    In this case I think that is the lesser of two evils. It's not like there's a shortage of ways in which to gamble your money, and these machines have been shown to do more harm than good.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It seems a sensible change in my view, a lower limit reduces the rate at which people can get themselves into debt, at least in theory.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.