My name is Lainie and I enjoy the pokies

Super D says:

06:50am | 30/10/11

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was more opposition to this within the Labor Party than the Liberals.  It is Labor after all who benefit from the pokies at the workers’ clubs around the nation.  It was Labor state governments after all that oversaw the massive increase in the number of poker machines and in NSW at least introduced them to pubs.

Abbott is no doubt playing politics and why shouldn’t he?  This law is only being introduced as a result of Labor’s grubby deal to cling to power.

Freeman says:

06:27am | 30/10/11

Super D,

if you can win $1200 in an hour I’d say you can lose it. I’ve seen my mates put hundreds through a pokie in minutes. it shouldn’t be allowed.

acotrel says:

06:28am | 30/10/11

@SuperD
You should admit the truth to yourself.  The only reason you made that comment was that you are glued to the LNP !  Wishing that Tony Abbott will one day act responsibly or even make sense, won’t make it happen !

Steve Putnam says:

07:59am | 30/10/11

I’ve seen a friend’s wife do $1,000 in an hour over two consecutive hours.
This was a tragic instance of problem gambling for more reasons than one. The friend concerned was trying to establish a small manufacturing business at the time and was working seven days a week to achieve this. It was during a period of low demand for his components and he was deeply troubled by the possibility that he might have to lay workers off.
His wife was in total denial about the whole thing, and was at first oblivious to the fact that I was even present. When she finally did notice me it was the old lie about “breaking even”. Though I said nothing to my friend about it, I haven’t been invited around to any of his social events since, and my own attempts to re-generate the friendship have been rebuffed.

Economist says:

08:29am | 30/10/11

I call BS on your BS and take that bet. At 3 seconds a spin, $10 a pin, that $200 a minute or $12000 an hour, assuming an on average 87-95% back on a machine (this % should be shown on the machine, but generally isn’t) you’d lose $1660- $600. Now a machine doesn’t pay back between 87-95% every hour, its effectively over the lifetime of the machine, you could be their in an “unlucky” hour. Besides I’ve seen it and been told it.

Regarding the nanosecond, punters simply insert a paper coaster between the button, then continually feed it cash.

You can deposit my winnings by calling 1800 800 768. and speak to Lifeline (13 11 14).

Super D says:

10:05am | 30/10/11

To lose $1200 an hour you need to lose $20 per minute and at $5 a spin that is one spin every 15 seconds - which is how long a spin takes.  All I’m saying is that to achieve the magical $1200 lost in an hour you would need to have the machine preloaded with $1200 (a silly thing to do) then either hit spin again as soon as the spin completes - or have a coaster wedged in the button.  Even still you could only lose the $1200 if not a single obe of your 240 spins won a single credit.  My point is not that pokies reform isn’t needed just that the theoretical maximum that is bandied about is unlikely to ever have been achieved in practice.

Now I may be wrong that the spin duration is 15 secs but then this would produce a higher theoretical maximum loss an hour and it just doesn’t seem likely to me that anyone arguing passionately against pokies would use anything other than the highest possible (albeit theoretical) number.

Of course you could lose more if you were playing two machines at a time but thats taking moron to the next level.

Jarrod says:

11:10am | 30/10/11

SuperD: Since the anti-pokies campaigners are continually referring to the $10 maximum bet in the same breath as the $1200 per hour figure, I think it’s safe to summarise that they are talking about maths closer to Economist’s than yours even if accepting your 15 seconds per spin figure (which I’m fairly sure it is shorter than).

Jordan Rastrick says:

11:44am | 30/10/11

15 seconds per spin?

Super D, for someone very quick to call others morons, you’re awfully relaxed about offering bets on the characteristics of machines you’ve seemingly never actually set eyes on, let alone played or studied at any significant length.

Super D says:

12:53pm | 30/10/11

The point is where does the $1200 an hour figure come from?  Is it just made up or does it have some firm footing?  I’m more than happy to concede you may get more than 4 spins a minute - I have no idea what the exact number is.  The point though is if its more than 4 then the potential loss rate is higher than $1200 an hour.  With $10 spins its even higher.  So why is the $1200 number quoted everywhere?

And yes it is moronic to lose $1200 an hour playing pokies and it is certainly even more moronic to do it on 2 machines at the same time.

Economist says:

01:56pm | 30/10/11

Super D I gave you the figures, but my bad I got part of my calculation wrong. In NSW/ACT, the spin rate is 3.5 seconds not 3, where do you get the idea of 15 seconds? Where does the $1200 come from I’ve linked to it before, check out the PC report into gambling., most of which Lainie’s analysis comes from.

They’re not morons they’re addicts. They range from professions to no skills. I wonder if Phil Gould has the guts to speak to the families of football stars, who I won’t name, whose live have been ruined by these machines??

Super D says:

04:57pm | 30/10/11

@Economist - the $1200 comes from Lainie’s article above - I have no idea where she got it from.  I took that figure and worked backwards on the basis of a $5 bet assuming that this was the highest potential loss per hour, meaning $20 per minute, meaning 15 second spins.  Which seemed logical to me at 6:20am.  At 3.5 sec spins the potential loss would be over $5k/hour - assuming the credits were preloaded and no time was wasted between spins and not a single credit was won.

Austin 3:16 says:

09:20am | 30/10/11

Productivity Commission - $19 billion was spent on gambling in 2008-09, $12 billion of it on poker machines.

Three-quarters of problem gamblers have problems with poker machines. It’s even higher for women - in 9 out of 10 cases poker machines are identified as the cause of problems for women
Delfabbro, P, Gambling Research Australia, A review of Australian Gambling Research, August 2008, p61

So if pokies do make up 63% of all gambling and 75% of all problem gambling in this country why not treat them as a stand-alone cause for concern ?

Robert says:

10:18am | 01/11/11

@ Chris_D the problem with the pokies (and to same degree Kino) is the instant gratification and addictive nature of it.

in your case you were in a social environment iterating with others.

Poker machines are entirely different. Problem gamblers can set at a machine for hours with no concept of time or how much they are betting.

So while it’s true that some might simply more to other forms of gambling in many cases if the poker machine addiction can be broken they will not. Even if only 10% break the habit that’s 9,500 people being helped with no impact on anybody else.

Austin 3:16 says:

09:12am | 30/10/11

From my limited understanding the problem with the pokies isn’t trying to get rich quick it’s the psychological effect the machines have on the players. Problem gamblers often refer to the “zone” when playing the pokies. To quote a comment from another forum “We are slaves to these machines we can not walk out, you get in a zone it is not the money, we are compulsive gamblers.”

The “zone” seems to be unique to the pokies as opposed to other forms of gambling.

acotrel says:

09:21am | 30/10/11

It doesn’t matter how you try to spin it, the pokies lobby and Tony Abbott are acting like the low life they are, on this one !

Andrew says:

10:52pm | 01/11/11

It is about balance: we don’t want a nanny state, but nor do we want a state where no one gives a s**t about anyone else. The pokie purveyors are much closer to the latter than the former, like tobacco companies.

acotrel says:

09:29am | 30/10/11

@Kipling
‘clubs and pubs who have raked in fairly substantial profits from this have had ample time to come up with some practical solutions’

‘Fairly substantial ’ ?  - OBSCENE would be closer to the truth.  And all that stuff about voluntarily putting value back into the community is BULLSHIT ! The only value they return is through government tax which you couldn’t claim is voluntary !  Our local club claims the wages of its staff as being the maor part of their contribution.  I don’t know how their manager sleeps at might, with his rotten conscience.
Locals councils should be able to tax pokies venues in their areas at the GST rate, to take pressure off other ratepayers !

acotrel says:

09:35am | 30/10/11

@Fiona
There are no pokies in the VIctorian town of Mansfield, yet they have two excellent pubs which sell superb meals.  It’s not rocket science to provide a decent service to the public.
In Benalla we have three pokies venues, none of them sell a decent meal, or even one at a reduced price ! There is only one good restaurant in the town, and it is struggling to survive.

Rose says:

01:16pm | 30/10/11

Once upon a time Adelaide had a roaring live music culture, with many pubs hosting several gigs a week. Now the bands have been pushed aside for pokie machines. Other pubs which had atmosphere and were a little rundown but always friendly and welcoming are now all chrome and glass and about as warm as an iceberg.
Back in the good ol’ days going to the pub meant hanging around listening to music, chatting with mates and anybody else who happened along, a few drinks and a lot of laughs. Nowadays I don’t usually bother with pubs, too many bright, flashy lights and those ridiculous bells and whistles on the macines that just won’t shut up.

Fiona says:

09:13am | 31/10/11

Rose, I too remember the days when pubs hosted bands of varying talent on a regular basis. They used to get really busy on weekend nights. I come from Melbourne, so we were not suffering for lack of choice there. It’s a real shame that my kids haven’t had the chance to experience that, or up and coming bands have far less potential venues.
Acotrel, you’re lucky you have at least one place without pokies to go to. Even our local sports and rec club has about 10 of them and it’s really a small (fairly crappy) venue.

Daemon says:

06:44pm | 31/10/11

I think we should all move to Toompine. There are no pokies, but the meals are first rate and cheap as chips.

Say hi to Jonesy.

Col Croweater says:

01:45pm | 30/10/11

An interesting comment. Isntt it sensible to say that the problem gambler must come from a pool of those who “like a flutter” as you say? So a reduction in those who “like a flutter” will result in a reduction in problem gambling”
I was interested to hear James Packers comments about his Casino’s own efforts to reduce problem gambling by introducing their own scheme. He said himself that 20,000 took up this scheme last year. Doesn’t that admission alone suggest that theit is a real need for a national approach to problem gambling. Another point is that problem gambling is not the only issue. In many cases problem gambler steal to feed their habit much like drug addicts. In many cases stealing from their employers to feed the machines. This legislation could in fact be great for many small businesses as Laine points out as small businesses employ many more people than Pokie palaces.

Lapun says:

11:16am | 30/10/11

Absolutely agree.  We will have very few freedoms left after this Green/Labour/Nobodies government gets through.  Can’t play Pokies, can’t let companies expand when it makes sense,  same-sex marriage to maybe become compulsory with the greens in the senate.  Omigawd!
I play pokies very, very, seldom, but when I returned to Australia after years overseas, and had very few old friends to return to, I did fill in lonely days in clubs and played them.
My experience was that I lost more on small value, small bet, machines as the return was not enough to make me put it in my pocket and go home.  I just kept feeding them.
When I switched to placing bets, 25 lines x 10c, I found that the machines were much more likely to drop a fair pay, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, the amount was was sufficient to make me put it in my pocket and go home.  I may still have been down but not as much as the other way.

malohi says:

12:15pm | 31/10/11

Your seystem makes no sense. Sorry.

Paul M says:

05:06pm | 01/11/11

its because chicks (even 80-yo ones) simply don’t understand math.