Prev
Next

Big Gaming is pushing all the wrong buttons

Ross Womersley

by Ross Womersley

15 Apr 05:50am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Families, Gambling, Gaming, Poker Machines, Pokies, Society

60 comments

Yesterday in The Punch, David Penberthy ridiculed the gambling industry’s claims that pokie-reform was un-Australian. But the $20m campaign by Australian Hotels Association and Clubs Australia campaign about the so-called “licence to punt” is more than just shallow and bankrupt politicking – it’s plainly misleading.

Looks like a fake to us! Pic: Justin Lloyd

There is NO proposal to have a licence to punt and those concerned about the damage poker machines do are not calling for a licence to punt.

The pre-commitment scheme currently under consideration applies only to poker machines (not punting more generally) and at its simplest is a basic consumer protection tool which will allow gamblers to pre-set a limit to how much they will spend.

In fact, there are so many wrong or misleading things in these AHA/Clubs Australia adverts that it is hard to know where to begin.

Contrary to claims that the scheme will apply to a $5 punt, the Federal Government inquiry into pre-commitment is currently considering various options which would allow occasional recreational and low-level players to use machines outside of the pre-commitment scheme.  Like many in the welfare community, the SA Council of Social Service supports these options – as long as they don’t undermine the integrity of the system. BUT the government has yet to make a decision, which makes a further lie of the AHA/Clubs Australia attack ads about “if the Federal Government gets its way”.

In a pre-commitment scheme where all information is stored on a gambler’s own card (and getting a card would require no more identification than you need to hire a DVD from the local video store), it’s also hard to see where concerns about loss of freedom or privacy may arise.

Again, the government hasn’t made a decision on the details (so it may operate differently), but to assert, as the AHA/Clubs Australia TV advert does, that the government would be “tracking what was won and lost”, is simply scaremongering. And it’s pretty hypocritical when the information recorded about gamblers and their betting is actually likely to be less than many venues already collect through their “loyalty” programs.

And finally, in the context of serious public health and public policy issues, the suggestion in the industry’s TV adverts - that the government will be “telling us how many beers to have next” – might be useful for dramatic effect, but it too, has no basis in fact.

Wrapping issues in green and gold by calling something “un-Australian” doesn’t change the facts. And for the record, the facts are pretty scary. Australia has some of the “highest intensity” pokies in the world – big multiple bets available, high prizes to lure gamblers, and fast spin cycles for high turnover.

The result, according to the Productivity Commission, is possible gambling losses for a pokie player of $1,200-$1,500 an hour. In total, over $10b is spent per year across nearly 200,000 machines. About 40 per cent of this comes from problem gamblers. Surely, no matter how deep our national pride, this is something our nation cannot be proud of?

Remember too, the harm from problem gambling goes way beyond the gamblers themselves – to families, friends, employers and the broader community through stress and lack of engagement, debt default, relationship breakdown, crime and violence. In the way that only economists can, the Productivity Commission has estimated the costs of associated with gambling at between $4.7b and $8.4b per year.

Behind these statistics are real people’s lives.

It is alarming that, faced with a proposal for a scheme which will assist in minimising harm and preventing gambling problems developing, the gambling industry is responding much like big tobacco did…with big advertising dollars being deployed against the public interest. Like tobacco, gaming machines are an addictive product. 

Thus the logic of the Productivity Commission’s conclusion that a consumer protection and public health approach should be adopted so as to minimise this damage. A pre-commitment scheme is simply part of that approach.

While inroads into rates of smoking have been made (despite the concerted campaign of the tobacco industry), it remains to be seen whether the political power of the hotels and clubs lobby will thwart the move to a mandatory pre-commitment scheme.

We should not underestimate that political power. It is not just the $20m advertising campaign. According to Australian Electoral Commission data, in the last financial year, the Australian Hotels Association (state & national) provided a total of $429,000 to the Labor, Liberal, and National Parties, while Clubs Australia and state Clubs Associations provided $318,000 for party coffers. On top of this, there were donations from various casinos plus Australia’s biggest poker machine owner, Woolworths.

Most state governments are also deeply conflicted since they too are increasingly wedded to their share of the pokie spoils.

Yet despite these big dollars, thankfully, there is still broad community concern about the harmful and sometimes tragic impacts of a pokie addiction. This was reinforced by recent polling by the Australia Institute on behalf of UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide, which found that two-thirds of all Australians believed that it would help pokie players if they were required to set limits.

Knowing the damage and loss that could be prevented and this level of public support, it is surely not too big an ask for government to put in place a system that asks gamblers to make a clear choice, in the cool light of day, about their gambling budget.

Most commented

60 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Sarah Bath says:

      05:30am | 15/04/11

      Its obvious that gambling is a common part of government now.  Gillard is gambling with the future generations by not immediately immplementing a carbon tax and taxing big polluters 90% of their profits.
      Gillard is gambling with the chance that by unfairly targetting those who opt to be on welfare, she risks going to an election.
      The other neocons are gambling with the risk that should they speak someone will take them seriously.  The odds on that one are about the same as Kevin playing full forward for the Bulldogs

      Reply

    • Against the Man says:

      06:47am | 15/04/11

      Bring on an Election!

    • acotrel says:

      06:48am | 15/04/11

      @Sarah Taking a risk is NOT gambling, as long as you assess and manage the risk appropriately.  There is an urban myth that pokies retrurn a precribed percentage to players.  The question is ‘who checks’?  And who checks that the legislated proportion of funds from pokies are returned to the community?  Our local venues in Benalla have learnt that if they don’t pay, EVER - the venue returns a bigger profit.  And they claim that they return money to the community in the form of their employees wages.  I don’t believe that was the exact intent of the gaming legislation? Playing the pokies is vastly different from normal risk taking.  In our town and most other country towns,  you are CERTAIN to lose!

    • Dash says:

      07:01am | 15/04/11

      Sarah, the ALPs proposal on the carbon tax does not make polluters pay. It makes families pay on the basis of income not on the basis of pollution. And it will have no impact on average global temperatures. It iis a socialist policy of wealth redistribution and has nothing to do with the environment. Anyone who suggests otherwise needs their head read!

    • Bilby says:

      08:12am | 15/04/11

      acotrel - “There is an urban myth that pokies retrurn a precribed percentage to players.  The question is ‘who checks’?”

      It’s absolutely not a myth, it’s a statistical certainty given enough spins of the wheel (which admittedly is quite a large number). The return is the result of a deterministic process driven by a random number generator, which is all carefully checked by government regulators. The club can only choose from the options provided by the manufacturer, which means they have no choice but to comply with at least the minimum return which is ~87%.

    • acotrel says:

      08:45am | 15/04/11

      @ Bilby The random number can obviously be manipulated at the behest of venue operators.  There was even a court case where a venue operator successfully sued a manufacturer because the machines paid out too much when first installed!  Our machines in Benalla in all three venues rarely pay out.  If you get the ‘feature’, it doesn’t matter how much you’ve bet, the payout is still miserable! Our Bowls Club is deeply in debt, and I believe it started the trend, and the other operators copied it.  There are no jackpots ever paid out.  The ‘wild cash’ never goes off in any of our venues.  The ‘strict government control’ is a load of bull!

    • AFR says:

      09:20am | 15/04/11

      Sorry acotrel, there is not conspiracy. Pokies pay out a set amount, and there is no way to simply open the machine and tweak a dial. There is a minimum return to punters required (85% from memory), and this is heavily regulated.

    • Ryan says:

      09:39am | 15/04/11

      @Sarah Bath: yes and its obvious we should be taking preventative steps to protect us from an alien invasion, there is about as much proof for that scenario.

    • Bilby says:

      10:31am | 15/04/11

      acotrel - The only thing an operator can do is select from the options provided. All the magic numbers and other factors that add up to the return to player are hard coded and can’t be changed after production. The random number generator itself has to be validated as part of the process.  It’s not as simple as just punching in the desired return.

      As with all genuinely random processes, paying out massive amounts on the first day is highly unusual but “as designed”. I don’t know the details of that particular case, but I would suggest the operator would only win if there was a non-compliance found in the software.

      As for the “no-one ever wins” well that’s because of the way machines are designed these days. Without going into it, if a machine offers a really big win, then it has to collect that money somehow. Lots to the few, none to everyone else. The more features and bonuses and jackpots a game has, the less the original game pays.

      Poker machine design is ultimately about giving a player what they think they want, not necessarily what they would want if they had all the information available and the knowledge to decipher it. You know that little sticker that says that your chance of winning the jackpot is no better than one in a million? It’s not even close.

    • gman says:

      10:53am | 15/04/11

      All poker machines must be linked into a data monitoring system that collates all input/output data of a gmaing machine for review by the Dept of Liquor, Gaming and Racing to ensure integirty.

      Further information can be found here:
      http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/gaming_info_cms.asp

    • Mel says:

      12:48pm | 15/04/11

      It’s also in the best interests of the venue to pay just above the required percentage so as to attract return business. In the first venue i worked for, there were two other hotels nearby. But we were the ones who attracted the most business, because often patrons thought they had a better chance of winning on our machines. When you spend as much time playing pokes as much as this lot did, even a slight advantage is very quickly noticed. However you look at it though, most still did their dough, and were willing to come back to do it all again the next day. Very sad.

    • Denny Crane says:

      05:07pm | 15/04/11

      Not only stupid but dishonest to boot. Tell us how much the tempreture will reduce as a result of the tax? zero, zip, nil. Sounds like a good deal to me.

    • Gordicans says:

      08:43pm | 15/04/11

      Denny Crane, you are propagating that dishonest bit of propaganda put out by Bolt to confuse the simple.  The fact is that if you (hypothetically) removed all humans from the earth, the temperature would not drop. 

      Excess C02 takes hundreds of years to be reabsorbed.  Conversely,  excess C02 heats up the earth straight away (because it’s a greenhouse gas).  If you don’t stop the excess C02 pumping out the temperature will rise quickly.  That’s why action needs to be taken straight away.

    • acotrel says:

      06:47am | 16/04/11

      @Bilby
      ‘The only thing an operator can do is select from the options provided.’

      That’s what I’m talking about!  The payouts are supposed to be RANDOM!  The venues operate under false pretences! The pokies should be banned altogether, it’s just like game fixing! The town of Mansfield has no pokies, yet has two beautiful pubs which supply excellent meals!  Why do we need to pokies, if other places can develop better venues without them?

    • Bilby says:

      11:33am | 16/04/11

      acotrel - The reels you see on a poker machine are a direct analogue of the reels in older (or vegas style) one armed bandits. They have a fixed number of symbols in a fixed order. When you hit the button, 5 random numbers representing a position on each reel are pulled from the generator and the reels spin to show those positions. So, while the numbers are truly random, the result can only be one of a predetermined set of outcomes. By virtue of the number of each symbol on each reel a theoretical return can be calculated (of course its a little more complex but that’s the basics). Thus the club can be guaranteed a certain return in the long run which is ultimately the purpose of the machine in the first place. If they were truly random no-one would buy them, and no-one would play them.

      Btw don’t confuse my knowledge with support for the thieving things, more a result of three years of my life that I’ll never get back working for the dark side.

    • John C says:

      05:37am | 15/04/11

      I will ask the question again. Could not a similar result be obtained by either increasing the percentage machines must return to players or by setting a limit on the amount played per pull, for example maximum bet 10 cents, maximum multiplier 5. This would substantially reduce both the attraction and the amount a player could lose.

      Reply

    • dale says:

      07:34am | 15/04/11

      One of the proposals is the have a smaller limit on each machiene i think it is a max $1 bet per spin. this vastley reduces the amount of money that can go into one machiene at a time.

      I dont see how anyone could have a problem with limiting the MAX bet, if yo9u just play for fun once in a blue moon do you really need to throw away $50? it would be easy to enforse and all the outcry of a national card to bet would be thrown out the window. easy solution to end this pittifull add campaign.

      Bring back Live music in pubs! make them social hangouts not dark caves full of pokies

      but i also think the government needs a good win against this sort of advertising against any policy that an industry dosent like. BAD JUJU’s

    • Economist says:

      08:34am | 15/04/11

      Yep this is my preferred approach. maximum bets of 50 cents with slower spin rates.

    • Duff says:

      09:05am | 15/04/11

      It seems a much less cumbersome solution.  And avoids a lot of the “nanny state” objections.  But would it work to dissuade genuine problem gamblers?  They might just make up for the lower limits by gambling for longer periods of time.

    • HappyCynic says:

      09:25am | 15/04/11

      This is worse than the card idea in my opinion.  I hate pokies they’re for mugs and fools but I acknowledge that alot of people are able to make a living off those mugs.  Reducing the amount you’re able to bet at any one time would have a far greater impact on the club or pub’s financial returns.

      The prepaid card (and I think this should be compulsory and extended to all forms of gambling simply because it could be really convenient to the punter and provider alike if it’s modified slightly) allows the stupid people to know how much money they’re going to lose before they sit down at the poker machine.  How fast that mug decides to lose his money is still up to him but the financial impact to pubs and clubs would be far less.

      You want to be able to reduce the issue of problem gambling without having too great an impact on pubs and clubs but you also don’t want to turn off the responsible punter.  I think the prepaid card is the best solution to this, especially if it’s rolled out over all forms of gambling.

    • steve parker says:

      06:51am | 15/04/11

      Ross - I don’t want to be producing a 100 points of identity the odd times I walk into the Colonnades Tavern on a Friday night to have a pint and to put $5 into the machine. Okay? Point taken?

      Reply

    • Ross Womersley says:

      11:58am | 15/04/11

      Steve - if the industry wasn’t so busy being completely hysterical about putting a manadatory pre-commitment scheme in place we might well be able to get on with a conversation about how to manage your occassional punt.  There are a range of potential solutions but for as long as the industry insists on maintaining a no holds barred refusal to deal with the basic issue its impossible to have this conversation.

      Just for the record (& noting there still is no actual details for the scheme) you could have a pre-commitment scheme that required no more identification than you would need to hire a video/dvd from your local hire place.

    • Dash says:

      06:56am | 15/04/11

      Can someone please explain to me why this ALP government continually anoiunces half baked policies. I’m all for assistance in this area but why do we have an incompetent bunch of hacks continually announcing as policy ideas they have not thought through! Its policy on the run!
      Profits tas, carbon tax East Timor solution are but three big examples of announcements which have been made dressed up as policy.

      This government is a joke!

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      12:31pm | 15/04/11

      Perhaps their collective brain-mouth filters aren’t working properly, which leads them to announce their thoughts on national television before discussing and developing them?

    • Mel says:

      07:15am | 15/04/11

      re the card - “and getting a card would require no more identification than you need to hire a DVD from the local video store”....um, have you tried to hire a DVD lately?? it requires an enormous amount of ID, far more than is required for anything else - drivers license, medicare card, recent bills paid…...time spent rifling in the home office is required before joining a new video store. Just saying…...

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:24am | 15/04/11

      Fixing problem gambling is not rocket science! All that needs to be done is to remove the ATMs from the venues.  Then gamblers would have to plan ahead how much they were prepared to lose, and take it with them.  The convenience of accessing an ATM immediately adjacent to the machines is planned entrapment.  In some states you can even access your credit account in venues - how cynical is that?  Every venue restaurant has a card reader, so the move wouldn’t affect paying for meals or drinks.  The ATMS are only there to rip off patrons when they get sucked into believing the machines might pay.

      Reply

    • MsLulu says:

      08:56am | 15/04/11

      @ acotrel I think there is already rules in place about atms in gambling venues ie has to be on a different floor but customers just pop across the road to the atm and get there money that way.

    • Steve says:

      09:30am | 15/04/11

      I think the true addicts would just walk to the nearest ATM outside the exlusion zone, and remember the pokies are in pubs and casinos where a lot of non-gamblers want cash for drinks and meals, etc.

      Wish it was that simple.

    • AFR says:

      10:49am | 15/04/11

      ATM controls differe from state to state. From memory, Victoria probably has the toughest regulations (last year I ended up on the car park trying to find an ATM). In NSW you cannot have an ATM in the pokie “room”, but most venues simple place one right outside it.  Removing ATMs entirely isn’t such a crazy idea. It is known that making a gambler take a break/go outside etc can make them reaise just how long they have been punting, and can break the machine’s hold.

    • Mel says:

      01:00pm | 15/04/11

      AFR is right, that’s why gaming venues were exempt from the anti-smoking laws when they first came in here in Tassie- yet another example of the gambling industry’s hold over political process. Even now, most smoking areas are directly joined to the gaming rooms, and have glass walls so that patrons can still see everything that’s going on inside, lest the spell be broken.

    • acotrel says:

      06:54am | 16/04/11

      It’s probably no coincidence that The initiative to control the pokies has come from tassie!  In their venues you can access your credit account thru the ATMs.  With an economy which is so poor, that’s downright irresponsible!

    • MsLulu says:

      08:12am | 15/04/11

      Our Local R.S.L Employs over 150 staff it gives at least 350.000 a year back to the community. When we needed a patient transfer station out at our airport because the state government was to cheap to put one out there even though patients had to wait on the tarmac in the rain for a flight down to a hospital in Brisbane, Our R..S.L Services Memorial Club threw in 80.000 to get the shed built and with the rest of the community we now have a patient transfer station. Our special school is now fully air conditioned at a cost of 42.000 dollars children are no longer having seizures in our humid weather. I have worked at the R.S.L I understand what poker machines do but I also know that people gamble on line and it is not controllled. Why are they not looking into that or is it to hard to police. This will go through as Julia needs Wilkie. I know people now who are saying they will just set thousand dollar limits you wont stop people gambling you will just drive it online. Our local R.S.L services Memorial club has to put back at least 300.000 a year into the community and it does and many young kids and junior teams benefit from this, I cant help feel our community will be worse for this and just for the record I dont play poker machines and I dont gamble. @ John C some good points there.

      Reply

    • Economist says:

      08:33am | 15/04/11

      Ms Lulu, how many machines does the club have, please also provide their details so others can look at their financials. while $300000 is a great amount of money, how much did they pay themselves?

    • Duff says:

      09:26am | 15/04/11

      You don’t play poker machines and don’t gamble.  Neither do I (much).  That’s because, like most people, gambling is not a problem for us and the magical lure of the Pokies doesn’t really have that much of an effect on us.

      But, what you don’t seem to have factored in, is that for a proportion of any given population “gambling” is indeed a real problem.  The Pokie culture, which has virtually taken over the RSL’s, feeds off these people.  A great dea of the money for the good things you mention, the charity etc., comes from these people, not you or I.  And here’s the thing: in most cases they are the people often who are least able to afford to subsidize the rest of us.  And, as the article points out, this has an effect on their families and dependants. 

      So, what we’re doing is taking advantage of a minority of people in society who are vulnerable to gambling addiction to raise money to pay for things that benefit the rest of us.  It’s just not right.

    • Steve - Albury says:

      08:32am | 15/04/11

      I have no problem with eliminating polies if they want, but there is one thing to note about this proposal.

      It is not simple, and it can be applied to everything.

      In order that the system not be easily bypassed there are a couple of requirements.
      1. I can only get one card - so I must prove my identity, and someone must know that I have already got a card from Melbourne when I apply for one in Sydney.  This requires a nation wide control authority.
      2. I must not be able to use my wife’s or firends’ cards.  There would have to be some sort of penalty and enforcement regime.
      3. The machines must be able to access the national authority to check that I haven’t just walked across the road or driven across town to play more.  This is a big data network which must be secure.
      4. The card shouldn’t let me bet more than I can afford, so it needs to have access to my accounts, or someone must have access to set the limit, otherwise I will just select $100,000 every time I play.

      It is a nice idea, but so is world peace.  I am not sure it can be done.

      Reply

    • dale says:

      10:21am | 15/04/11

      on point 2….

      a case was tryed in melbourne where a woman won a jackpot of crown casino members points using here daughters card. tha casino did not pay out because it was not her card.

      if you played pokies on someone elses card and won then the venue would just refuse payment.

    • Tim says:

      11:55am | 15/04/11

      dale,
      in the case you mention the jackpot related to the card itself. ie she won on the card.
      No pokie wins would be allowed to be linked to your card so I think Steve’s point is probably a good one.

    • Super D says:

      08:57am | 15/04/11

      Actually I think the easiest way to reduce poker machine gambling would be to simply disallow note feeders.  This would slow the rate at which money can be put into the machines without affecting the gaming experience.  It requires a lost more patience on the part of the player to put in $100 in coins than simply slide in a couple of notes.

      Reply

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      09:30am | 15/04/11

      What they need to do is disallow the playing of a ‘‘winning tune’’ unless there is a net win. It is the music that feeds most of the addiction, but you can play 25 lines, costing $5, get $0.50 back on one line and it plays an almost hypnotic jingle. 
       
      Addicts have talked about hearing it in their sleep. It is appalling.

    • Tim says:

      11:57am | 15/04/11

      I agree with Super D and I think this is what they do in Adelaide. It’s a lot harder to lose a lot of money if you are constantly having to change multiple notes into coins.

    • MsLulu says:

      09:07am | 15/04/11

      @ Economist I will provide the clubs name but I would like to ask first . I know they have at least 150. I dont like gambling and after working in clubs I have seen what they can do. I know 300.000 ( and Im pretty sure it is more but I will get back to you on the correct amount ) Is not a lot of money compared to what goes in and what a club makes. I just don’t see how doing this is going to stop people from gambling, people will still do it.  Our R.S.L SMC does more for the ex service community than the sub branch does and I know for sure if our club folds over this there is going to a very disappointed community not just because of poker machines but the social aspect as well. I think you would have to know our club and town to understand what I mean . Not to mention the 150 staff who will be out of work and our town is well known for its high unemployment possibly the largest in Queensland…

      Reply

    • dale says:

      11:05am | 15/04/11

      And gambling problem by the sound of it

    • Tim says:

      09:22am | 15/04/11

      This is still a ridiculous idea pandering to the absolute minority of people who can’t control their gambling.
      This pre-commitment will simply reduce the amount casual gamblers punt while the problem gamblers who the scheme is designed to help will find ways around it.
      It’s a plain stupid idea.
      We should have more targetted schemes to combat problem gambling and force the club industry to give more back to the community instead of spending the money on increasing their empires.

      Reply

    • AFR says:

      09:35am | 15/04/11

      The pre-committment idea is over the top. Slowing the spins, limiting maximum bets, limiting ATM withdrawls, banning table service and free food/drinks are all much simpler things to implement that won’t affect the majority of punters who like to throw a lazy $20 in, knowing they will probably lose it.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      09:38am | 15/04/11

      If we are going to have a ‘Big Tobacco’, ‘Big Alcohol’ and now ‘Big Gaming’ as a method of de-legitimising those companies involved,  can we please have a ‘Big NGO’  and a “Big Social Sector Do-Gooders’ or a ‘Big Nanny’ as an equally damning title for ACOSS and the SACOSS, PHAA, Cancer Councils, etc?  Becasue they compete for money and influence as well.

      Just being fair.

      Reply

    • Ross Womersley says:

      12:17pm | 15/04/11

      Steve - I dream of the day we might have even just a fraction of the resources the tobacco or gambling industries use to promote their own interests. 

      For the record SACOSS operates on an annual budget of about .025% of the $20m the pubs and clubs are throwing at just this campaign. 

      Imagine if we had the same level of resources available.  Might be happy to be considered BIG SACOSS under these circumstances

    • MarK says:

      02:08pm | 15/04/11

      I want to know who are “Small Gaming”.

      It stands to reason there must be a small one to actually get the big moniker.

      It is by comparison isn’t it?

      Where is that midget hiding?

    • AdamC says:

      02:26pm | 15/04/11

      In can’t stand this Big [insert name of what you don’t like here]. I mean, do these wowser lobbying outfits think they are David taking on Goliath or something? Spare me!

    • Ms Lulu says:

      09:57am | 15/04/11

      I was asked to mention the name of our club I have been asked not to but I can tell you it is in South East Queensland. The club also provides counsellors on hand to assist problem gamblers and has been recognised for doing so . I know its not the club that gives back to the community it is the peoples money. After working in clubs for years I also know there are people who can afford to gamble and are quite happy to do so and do not like being told what they can spend their money on . I said 300.000 before I was told it was 380.000 this year and 400.000 the year before . All this information is available to the members and regular articles in our local papers. They have provided accomodation free of charge on a property they own for the use of legacy to use to help with over 500 war widows and wards we have in town as well as financial assistance. I know people who now play pokies at home so they can have a smoke in peace and dont even have to get dressed to leave the house. Sure do something about the problem but not some half arsed attempt to take our mind of the real issues. This government is trying to sidetrack us and pokies, smokes, dole bludgers is a good way to get the masses sidetracked. Also the problem gambling percentage in Queensland is 0.37 percent. I have given enough information to you Economist if you look hard enough you will find the club I am talking about but I respect their right not to have me write it down. I dont drink and lost my father at a young age to booze why are they not doing something about drugs and alcohol they ruin families too.

      Reply

    • Drew says:

      10:11am | 15/04/11

      Tracking what is won and lost is even more hypocritical than you think, Ross.

      As I said yesterday, the clubs actually use the data to adjust their returns.

      The machines are written by computer programmers to literally return negative results against the player if the house is losing money.

      I have a family member who works in the accounts department of a NSW Club. They have a computer in the main office which links in to all machines and actually controls the odds based on how much money the club is making or losing.

      It then adjusts the overall pokie return from that single computer. They are loaded dice.

      Reply

    • AFR says:

      10:44am | 15/04/11

      Drew, your family member is telling porkies. Sure, the machines are all linked, and up to the minute data is available to the club showing how much has been put in and whether the machine is winning or losing, but there is no magic knob that can change odds on the run.  Where the data is useful for a Club or pub, is that they can see what is working and what isn’t - for example, whether a particular game is not very popular (and so will be next one replaced with a more popular one).

    • Markus says:

      10:45am | 15/04/11

      I can’t confirm if it is the case in all states, but in ACT/NSW all machines have to display what percentage of their intake they are programmed to pay back out. Failure to display it is an offence, as is failure to display the correct percentage.
      Everyone knows they are loaded dice. Nobody cares.

    • Ross Womersley says:

      11:44am | 15/04/11

      Drew there are two key issues you raise here. 

      One is that the machines are programmed in a way in which the odds are always loaded in favour of the house, in part because they are programmed to give many small dividends - about which there is always a vastly overstated and loud song and dance and ringing of bells - which because of the small size of the WIN (dividend) many people immediately reinvest.

      The second is that most large venues do have very sophisticated ways of monitoring what is happening on every machine and most loyalty programmes ensure they also collect a vast amount of detail about the individual’s gaming activity.

      Both these do mean that pokie players are indeed always playing with loaded dice

    • Noogi says:

      10:25am | 15/04/11

      “Contrary to claims that the scheme will apply to a $5 punt, the Federal Government inquiry into pre-commitment is currently considering various options”

      Translation: “Contrary to claims that this is a license to punt, the Government is sort of maybe might look at something else perhaps…”

      ... or I guess it might not? I agree that Pokie campaign is mind-bogglingly stupid but what the Government’s proposing doesn’t sound like it’s anything concrete at all. In that respect, the Pubs are getting ahead of anything the Government might propose.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      10:47am | 15/04/11

      Easy way to reduce this is enforce a win rate lower instead of higher.  If you only won 10% of the time people would be a lot less interested. It’s the drip feeding that gets to problem gamblers.

      Would probably require also enforcing win amounts to be less than 10x bet too I suppose.

      Still the biggest problem with any scheme is illegal/unmonitored gambling.

      Reply

    • captain says:

      11:46am | 15/04/11

      Who is financing the pokie lobby, surely the clubs are’nt putting up the money.Does anyone know who owns the machines as the pubs and clubs don’t, they pay a percentage of profits to the owner.Anyway, my mate owns a pub in Yorkshire and when asked how the poker machines in his pub work, as they are more complicated than ours, he said, “you put money in and I take it out at the end of the week”!

      Reply

    • Randy says:

      12:59pm | 15/04/11

      Just do what we do in WA, and ban them.  That’s right, no pokies in our pubs/clubs.  We have a things like live bands, and a great local music scene. 

      The only pokies you’ll find in WA are at the casino, and even then they are poker machines, not one arm bandits.

      Our state government is not addicted to gambling taxes, unlike the failed states of the east coast. 

      Just another reason why WA is the best state in australia.

      Reply

    • Ben C says:

      01:48pm | 15/04/11

      Personally, I’m all for self-control and not a nanny state. I"m not a big gambler ($200 maximum - I can lose that in about 10 minutes), and I never play the pokies (much prefer sitting at a table in the casino, at least I’m thinking about what to do). However, I understand and appreciate that not everyone has the same self-control as me. Therefore, we really should think of ways to assist those who have more addictive personalities.

      I would not suggest a licence to gamble as such, that would be a bit too far. I would like to see time and/or monetary limits programmed into pokies. It might be a maximum of $50 to be fed into the machine, with a maximum stay of 1 hour. Whichever expires first, the machine will payout whatever is owed to the punter, and is locked for say 10 minutes, during which time messages about responsible gambling will be shown (not sure how much help that would be). This definitely isn’t the only option, because the gambler will just move on to the next machine, but at least it breaks the routine of sitting there for hours, feeding money into the machine and hitting buttons. Like acotrel above commented, if they step away from the machine they will have more of a chance of breaking the routine and losing all their money.

      Reply

    • Tee Why says:

      11:41am | 16/04/11

      There is only one way to save those addicted to gambling and prevent those on the cusp of becoming addicted:
             
                Limit and slow down the amount they can put in.

      If you can only put in $1 at a time instead of $9,  then you’ll only lose one-ninth of what you used to lose.

      That’s why those with vested interests screamed the loudest about this type of reform.
      Just like the big miners:
      THE ONE THEY SHOUT THE MOST ABOUT IS THE ONE THAT WILL WORK.  It means that the jackpots will be reduced and pokies become a social outlet rather than a trap for the gullible (me included).
      If governments were fair dinkum about helping those involved with gaming it would reduce its percentage of the take. Either increasing the odds to give a little more back or giving it back to owners clubs and pubs because their turn over will reduce.
      Either way, until governments kick its addiction to pokie revenue nothing will change. 
      As a $9 a go gambler, you win some and you lose MOST. Some people might consider winning $1,000 pretty good. But if the machine took $3,000 to get to that point, human nature does not say cut your loses you think, “I’m on my way back, I can do it.”. So, how do you get to be $3,000 behind? You’ve won in the past and get caught up “in the zone”.
      Limiting the amount you put in and the speed of the machine is the easiest and most manageable way to turn pokie playing back into a recreational past-time rather than catchup where you can never win.
      I was once told by a club owner, “if you double your money, pull out and leave.”. It’s good advice, that those addicted to gambling would ignore, just like,  “you’ve only got one in a million chance of winning a jackpot.”.
      .

      Reply

    • Jay says:

      11:47am | 18/04/11

      There are many people who unfortunately suffer from allergic reactions to meat, peanut butter, bread and whatever else there is. Should we ban all these substances? No. Playing Pokies is a choice. The geeks want to tell you about the reels etc etc good luck to them. At the end of the day, no one forces you to play and if you have a problem then help is available. We are turning our kids into a bunch of whining wimps who expect the State will do everything for them. I am fed up with this nanny State and it is time we start abolishing many programs that suck money out of the tax payers pocket i.e the bloody baby bonus is one that comes to mind. Let me tell you, if this law is brought in the Govt will see their revenues drop drastically and then we will see where they find the money to subsidize all these programs.Clubs and pubs apart from offering pokies do offer cheap meals, entertainment and sponsor many sports clubs as well as employing thousands of people. A small minority blow their money and so everyone else should suffer. It is wrong and it is time we tell the Govt to bud out of our lives.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 21 May 13 07:36PM

Ray Hadley fires back at Carlton. Great @candacesutton1 get: http://t.co/7fQzk4Xixh

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 21 May 13 07:23PM

@Drag0nista Can't see it bring re l 'ship Cos lots of Ruddites don't back gay marriage (Joel, Bowen) and lot of Gillardians do.

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 21 May 13 05:40PM

KRudd gives marriage equality folk hope, but odds still against it passing on June 6. http://t.co/QmQffMkSvH

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 21 May 13 04:29PM

ACL says gay marriage would lead to gay sex (how to do it) being taught in schools. You really haver to credit them with vivid imagination.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter