No pity for the poor pokie-addicted millionaires

acotrel says:

04:01pm | 11/02/11

We’ll go nowhere with this - the biggest addicts are the state governments It’s an urban myth that pokies are required by law to return benefit to the local community. It’s the same garbage that says the pokies are required by law to pay out a certain percentage!  - WHO CHECKS? Where is the law which prevents operators from ‘pumping’ the pokies?  In Victoria the venue operators claim wages paid to their staff as the contribution to the local community.

David says:

05:31pm | 11/02/11

I remember the sales pitch when pokies were introduced into S.A. “They’ll be the savior of sports clubs and community centres!” Ha, what a joke. While volunteer club commitees were still tryng to get a development loan from banks, or council approval, the Pokie Baron Pub Owners already had their palaces built and were raking in millions. It was game-over before it even started. Pokie palaces wiped out many clubs. Centrals is probably the only club thats really benefited from pokies, and thats because they have something of a geographic advantage.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:36am | 11/02/11

The problem was in allowing pubs to have pokies. It should have been restricted to sporting and community clubs where the money was plowed back into the club instead of lining the pockets of a few pub pokie barons.

Simonious says:

11:28am | 12/02/11

And Tony dont forget Woolworths and Wesfarmers ( Coles) they are pokie barons now too.

Bilby says:

08:26am | 11/02/11

What drives the problem gambler, and what the manufacturers use to keep them hooked, is the promise of a payout completely disproportionate to the stake. What they are looking for is the big pay, retirement day. Once it gets to a certain point, it’s even more so as they need to recoup losses, which of course they are highly unlikely to do otherwise the clubs wouldn’t make money. Thus if a punter hits their limit too often, I think they’d be more likely to walk away, or transfer to dogs or nags rather than general waste.

As for the SANFL, I say what are you? Rugby league? In this state, especially in the juniors, aussie rules is completely funded by donations and memberships, and gives away nothing, and competes well against league, which gives away just about everything for free.

Huey says:

08:41am | 11/02/11

Mahrat, well said. Living without the income from it is the problem shared by clubs, governments and hotels. They live in fear of losing easy money. Hypocrites!

acotrel says:

04:06pm | 11/02/11

There is a club in Benalla which is deeply in debt.  They have realised that if their machines never give a spit, they make more profit. It’s a comfortable pleasant venue, but worth staying well away from!

SM says:

07:46am | 11/02/11

utter nonsense

no-ones banning anything, they’re trying to put some restrictions in place that will help in reducing the damage problem pokie players do to themselves.  None of the restrictions will effect the recreational player, and the addicted ones need some help

grow up

Economist says:

08:10am | 11/02/11

Geez I hate this argument. That your punishing the majority who do the right thing. Nonsense. No government is proposing to ban pokies. The majority can still use them.  Even If $1 dollar limits were imposed you’d still be able to lose around $1000 in an hour (around 5 seconds a spin with a 91% win rate). Poker machines will still be able to turn over money. Whta’s worng within a $250 limit?

What the SANFL are admitting is that they make the vast majority of their money comes from problem gamblers. Surely you can see this? It becomes your problem because tax payers money is being sucked up elsewhere with health problems, family desctruction etc. So effectively the taxpayer is cross subsidising the clubs? There are far more negative externalities than positive externalities of a club getting enough money to put a footy team on the field. 

Sure losers will always be losers so they’ll waste their money elsewhere. Wrong. Study after study show the addictve nature of poker machines and their accessibilty being a problem.  How many losers have internet connections to gamble online? The fact is poker machines are a different form of gambling.

Within 0.5km radius of my workplace there are 6 poker machine venues including one that donates considerably to the Labor party.  But I don’t care because at least my steak and beer on a Friday night are cross subsidised.

AdamC says:

08:37am | 11/02/11

Economist, you aren’t as naive as you are pretending to be. There is no prospect that the anti-pokies lobby will be satisfied by minor restrictions. Once spin-rates and the like have been imposed, they will move on to the next restriction, just as the anti-tobacco lobby has done.

In the case of tobacco, most people seem to agree that the agenda to essentially get everyone to quit is reasonable, because there is no safe level of smoking and the health consequences of smoking are severe. However, this is not the case with gambling.

The anti-pokes agenda is just that, anti-pokies, and its members will not be satisfied until there are no more pokies.

Tim says:

08:54am | 11/02/11

Economist.
as I said in my other comment, the clubs should be forced to give more back to the community than just expanding premises or paying their footy players more money. They should be forced to give more money to worthwhile community organisations/charities.

And if you don’t think this is the first step to banning then you’re kidding yourself.
You used to be able to buy fireworks in Canberra, then they put restrictions on the type you could buy, then when you could use them, then the amount of noise they made and now they’re banned completely. All because a few idiots couldn’t control themselves and had to cause trouble.
And why don’t we apply the same system for smokers? Each smoker has to register with the government, then they get a card allowing them to purchase 10 cigarettes a day. no more.

Why don’t we apply the same system for drinkers? Each drinker has to register with the government, then they get a card allowing them to purchase 5 standard drinks a day. no more.

Why don’t we apply the same system for obese people? Each fatty has to register with the government, then they get a card allowing them to purchase 1 cheeseburger a day. no more.

etc.

OR

People could just take responsibility for themselves and the government can GTFO of my life and my business.

DocBud says:

10:49am | 11/02/11

Amen to that, Tim.

Unfortunately, concepts as to the nature and purpose of government have become perverted in recent years. There are large numbers of people who believe that citizens are actually subjects of the government and that government is there to regulate every aspect of our lives. Every time there is a problem, there are those who’s instantaneous response is to demand government action which nearly always involves chipping away at our freedoms.

We should believe that we elect governments to run, on our behalf, those things better done collectively while we take responsibility for everything else. There should be a presumption that people are adults capable of knowing what is best for them even if others may disagree.

“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest..” John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

acotrel says:

07:00am | 12/02/11

‘The anti-pokes agenda is just that, anti-pokies, and its members will not be satisfied until there are no more pokies.’

And that wouldn’t be all bad!  In our town with a population of 30,000, there are three pokie venues, and a group of people selling drugs to the kids, as well as a horse racing venue.  Where does the money come from to support these habits, and where does it go?: It certainly doesn’t get invested in ways which increase productivity, and the wealth of the town!

Economist says:

08:16am | 11/02/11

“Ocasionally put some money through the pokies” no ones stopping you, Your freedoms are safe unless you want to bet $9.00 every 5 seconds. You can still take more than $250.00 to the club of your choice, you just won’t be able to take out more than $250.00 at the club ATM.

AFR says:

08:33am | 11/02/11

“Licensed venues should have to offer gambling addiction services (counselling etc) and optional self exclusion. “

I’m not sure about other states, but this already exists in NSW.

Tim says:

08:40am | 11/02/11

Actually they are Economist.
I will have to register to play them. No thanks.
I will have to pre-commit how much I want to spend. No thanks.
I can only get $250 dollars out of the club ATM. No thanks.

How you can’t see this as trying to stop people playing the pokies is beyond me.

I like betting on horses and I’m faily good at it. I also make a good salary in my day job. Why should I have to be limited because some people can’t control themselves?

Tim says:

09:00am | 11/02/11

AFR,
Yes they do.
But as SM’s comment below suggests they are probably not strictly enforced.
Self exclusion should be strictly enforced by these venues so that people who want to be prevented from gambling are prevented. Large fines should be issued for non-compliance.

Economist says:

10:01am | 11/02/11

Tim your right. Your freedom to waste your money should be unihibited. I propose that we allow poker machines with $45.00 a spin limits like they do at Jupiters. I propose that Woolworths allow you to gamble why you do your shopping with those new fangled trolley’s. That way they don’t have to hide that fact that they’re one of our largest pokie providers.

As a smoker, I’ve accepted restrictions on my freedom and the funny thing is if they banned them, would it have that big an impact on my freedom. Not really.

What freedoms do you want and what are you rally against? Hell I don’t have the freedom to go out punch a mouthy knob who has it coming to them; i don’t have the freedom to sit at my desk and inject Heroine,  snort a line etc. Your right we should do a Singer and just allow family orgies Blah Blah Blah.

Tim as you’ve highlighted, there are other ways to lose your money. What if pokies had never existed, you wouldn’t know what you’re missing out on.

Adam C alleged social harm? Disporportionate? It is estimated Around 15-20% of suicides relate to problem gambling. Three-quarters of problem gamblers have their issue with the poker machines. The simple fact is the negative externalities outweigh the positive externalities.

As for looking to ban them well yes, that what Xenophon and Wilkie want, but your exaggerating their success. Nothings even been done yet. They haven’t banned smoking yet despite having a much larger lobby group. Whose exaggerating. Whose kidding themselves. They’re not going to ban pokies, while James Packer has a stake in Channel 10. In fact it would benefit Mr Packer to have them banned form clubs.

Economist says:

10:27am | 11/02/11

“How you can’t see this as trying to stop people playing the pokies is beyond me.”

Of course that’s what the anti-pokie lobby want I didn’‘t deny that. I said no government will ban them.  The success of the anti-pokie lobby? well we’ll wait and see.

So you don’t want to register to play. Well you actually already do, you have to be a member of a club, unless your at a casino then you can play to your hearts content.  I think your issue will be with the monitoring of your behaviour. And I agree that this is a step too far. What this will actually do is allow the clubs to better target the machines. It would be a market researchers dream.

As for monitoring Well guess what your bank already monitors it by noting if you take out large sums of money from ATMS within or near pokie venues. Soon they are proposing to ban loans to said individuals in case they are high risk. 

So you don’‘t want to pre-commit. you realise that we pre-commit for a lot of things to reduce harm. He’ll I can’t go and get an unlimited number of pharmaceuticals, I need a prescription even if my condition is ongoing, that means more doctor visits, What I purchase is monitored. What a scam. (admittedly a weak argument, but you hopefully get my point).

AdamC says:

10:39am | 11/02/11

I suspect the reason they haven’t banned smoking yet is because every habitual smoker is an addict. Banning highly addictive substances has a problematic history and many smokers would continue to smoke (i.e become criminals) if tobacco was made illegal.

Very few gamblers, by contrast, are addicts. Perversely, that makes it much easier to ban, as most gamblers would stop gambling if it were made illegal. But what would that accomplish except to stop lots of people doing something they enjoy?

I don’t like your figures on suicide - where are they from? I also don’t rate your Jamie Packer conspiracy theory.

Tim says:

10:46am | 11/02/11

Economist,
I’m looking for where I’ve said I think there shouldn’t be any limits of poker machines. Nup, didn’t say it.
I believe that licensed pubs/clubs/casinos are the correct location for them. Town planning rules and all that.
- $45 dollar a spin pokies, sure why not? If your dumb enough to lose that much a spin then good luck to you.

I believe you should have the freedom to do what you want as long as that doesn’t impinge on the freedom of others. Obviously there needs to be limits. I’d just like those limits to be widely set.

SOOO if you want to inject heroin, go ahead. As long as you don’t expect the government to pay for you when you need rehab I’m OK with your drug habit.
-I think punching someone else in the head just slightly impinges on their freedom so no, that’s out.
And hey it’s not my cup of tea but if sleeping with your sister/mother/father/brother is your thing then sure go for it.

Economist says:

11:18am | 11/02/11

Adam C addictions are prevalent in a lot of our behaviour. The issue is when this adidciton leads to anti-social behaviour. You can use the following list and if your actiivty leads to 5 of these behaviours its an addiction.

1. Preoccupation. The subject has frequent thoughts about activity, whether past, future, or fantasy.
2. Tolerance. As with drug tolerance, the subject requires larger or more frequent experiences to achieve the same “rush”.
3. Withdrawal. Restlessness or irritability associated with attempts to cease or reduce activity.
4. Escape. The subject undertakes activity to improve mood or escape problems.
5. Chasing. The subject tries to continually chase activity.
6. Lying. The subject tries to hide the extent of his or her activity by lying to family, friends, or therapists.
7. Loss of control. The person has unsuccessfully attempted to reduce activity.
8. Illegal acts. The person has broken the law in order to activity.
9. Risked significant relationship. The person undertakes activity despite risking or losing a relationship, job, or other significant opportunity.
10. Bailout. The person turns to family, friends, or another third party for financial assistance as a result of activity.

Therefore gambling can be an addiction.

Personally I don’t want to ban pokies or gambling. It will just go underground. I want to reduce its ability to harm.

The 15-20% was a study from the Albert hospital.

Economist says:

11:31am | 11/02/11

“I believe you should have the freedom to do what you want as long as that doesn’t impinge on the freedom of others. :”

But problem gambling does, doesn’t it. It impinges on the unfed child.  You want the limits widely set, where as I don’t want the limits as widely set as yourself. I repeat I don’t want to ban it. the fact is gambling is highly regulated, what are your limits. The examples of behaviour I gave were designed to be exaggerated. What you ewant toe status quo, but hte fact is the gambling industry will alwasy look at new ways to fleece your money. Do you accept that it’s reasonable to regulate on the win rates of poker machines. Or should a club be able to drop int down from 87% to say 50%?

Tim, as a frequent visitor to a club. I’m sure you’ve seen the addicts. Those that don’t have a beer with them while using a machine. That extra $4.00 can go into the machine. Those that aren’t having a casual chat with a mate, or playing a machine together, Those that when they get a big win don’t celebrate, smile and laugh but have a look of relief on their face or emabarassment in any attention it may bring from other patrons.

No doubt you’ve seen these types of people, but clearly rather than sympathise with them you look at them and think your better than them. Isn’t it nice to be able to say in your mind, you have a problem and I don’t therefore I’m better than you. That’s the attitude that’s on display when people refer to individuals with addictions as losers.

AdamC says:

12:04pm | 11/02/11

Economist, I certainly don’t dispute that some gamblers are addicts. Not at all. That is a good list of symptoms as well. My point was that, in contrast to alleged social ills like smoking, very few gamblers are addicts. And, for those that aren’t addicts, gambling is an enjoyable past-time that does not do them a any harm.

And, incidentally, it would assist many problem gamlers if pokies in clubs etc were banned, as the ubiquity of temptation would fall. Applying spin rates etc (as proposed) won’t do anything to help addicts.

Tim says:

12:41pm | 11/02/11

Economist,
unfed children are an issue for child services.
I said it before, people need to take responsibility for their own actions and this includes consequences. The consequences of not feeding your child or any other similar issue should be severe.
I’m quite happy with the gambling industry being highly regulated, but I object when the government wants to step in and monitor myself and my behaviour and when the government wants to control me from doing things that affect no one else.
My friends and I love having some fun down the club and part of that is gambling. When I see the addicts at the club, I have no need to sympathise with them because I can fully understand the feelings they have. The only difference being I know when to stop.
As I said previously, the clubs should be forced to offer better services for people who want to help themselves and should use the money made more wisely but I find it hard to feel sorry for people who are not willing to help themselves.

grumpy says:

08:41am | 11/02/11

Props for trying. You did the right thing. Pity the Casino couldnt follow through.

Empire says:

11:01am | 12/02/11

Then you should be going to the media SM and publicizing this lack of conforming. I would also say that any money spent at the casino during this time would have to be paid back to you.
I know when my brother in-law who has gambling problems rang up telstra to have them bar the 1300 numbers so he couldn’t rack up a huge bill again, and they didn’t comply he got his money back and a $500 credit for compensation.

Empire says:

11:23am | 12/02/11

Then you should be going to the media about this lack of complying by the Casino, they would also have to pay back any money gambled by you after your self exclusion.
It is your obligation to the community to help others like you, by taking a stand and forcing the government into taking some responsibility.
My brother in-law who has many different types of gambling choices once asked Optus to bar his phone from 1300 numbers so he couldn’t rack up another huge bill, and when they did not comply and he questioned them about it they canceled the bill and gave him a $500 credit.

Empire says:

01:07pm | 12/02/11

The non compliance of the casino means that they would have to give you back any money spent after your voluntary self exclusion.I suggest you go to the media!!!
I know someone who asked a telecommunications company to bar 1300 numbers and when they did not comply, and he asked them why it wasn’t done( because he kept obsessively compulsively checking) they wiped the bill and gave him a credit of $500 dollars for compensation.

Henry says:

10:12am | 11/02/11

Harden up pillow.

People are not forced to play pokies, drink beer etc.

They choose it - its called life.

Grumpy says:

01:54pm | 11/02/11

I hate people who say Harden up or go hard or go home or thats life…Or Such is life. Worst people ever. Wash the sand out of your vagina is funny.

Goldenfaber says:

07:17am | 13/02/11

That is my bug bear with my local hotel. They have the max pokies but charge the max for beer AND for food AND by trying to be trendy put sweet little on the plate presumably to save me from a heart attack!!!! Unfortunately i am a poor man living near a wealthy suburb so i cannot win locally and hence drink/eat near my workplace.

AJL says:

02:08pm | 11/02/11

Interesting comment.  It reminds me of an article I recently read about a lot of rural pubs in NSW facing foreclosure by banks, and the ones struggling, for the most part, were the ones who favoured shoving pokies into every available space.
Possibly more forward thinking businessmen at these clubs could take the hint and reduce the pokies, especially if theyre going to become less profitable.
I remain convinced that Crowe and Holmes a Court’s stance at Souths had less than nought to do with social damage and was entirely because they thought it’s make more money.

Rose says:

02:40pm | 11/02/11

Crowe and Holmes a Court’s motivation aside, I think a sporting club that provided real entertainment to a wide range of age groups would be an absolute golden goose. Another idea may be to merge different sporting code clubs into single clubs to increase their demographic and reduce overall costs. Entire families, male, female, young and old could all have membership at a sports club…..more community spirit, more resources, more money!! Tip for sporting clubs, stop being lazy and come up with creative alternatives to soul destroying pokies!!

Goldenfaber says:

07:29am | 13/02/11

How did most footy clubs/surf lifsaving clubs etc survive in the 1970’s etc? By illegal gambling nights and porno and stripper nights/Sunday shows. Ever heard of Crown and anchor? Just ask people who are in their fifties or older.
Do you know how many illegal gambling clubs existed in 1980? And just to get in you had to show the doorman you had $300. Some still exist in my area,  the Greek and Lebanese clubs.
I can you remember when every front bar floor was awash with bingo and beer tickets. There were people in my suburb who had NEVER been known tho buy a beer with money and they virtually lived in the pub - that will give you some idea how many beer tickets they bought.

hot tub political machine says:

09:31am | 11/02/11

Sadly Bobby they do breed - and their kids go hungry. A significant amount of the Child protection agency in your state’s work is caused by gambling

Quinn says:

10:00am | 11/02/11

Unfortunately the same people wasting all their money (including their baby bonus money) still have a license to breed…

How does the money find it’s way into your managed funds?  I want in…

Brando says:

10:27am | 11/02/11

Can’t agree more. Here we have a machine that’s programmed to ensure you lose. Everybody knows that the pokies only pay out 90% or less of what goes in. People that play them aren’t addicted to gambling. If you gamble you actually have at least some small chance of winning. These people are addicted to losing money and what’s more they know it.

Anybody who thinks you can win constantly playing the pokies is a moron. There are just some people that you can’t protect from themselves no matter how hard you try.

99.9999% of people that play the pokies know they are going to lose and look at it as entertainment value only. This is just legislation for the lowest common denominator.

Economist says:

12:40pm | 11/02/11

Brando, my undertstanding of poker mahcines is not that they pay out 90% of whatever goes in over the arbitrary lifetime of the poker machine, but a 90% win rate. For example you might gamble 20c a spin, it returns 2c therefore this is a win contributing to the 90%, but your actually down 18c on the spin. If only it were 90% of what goes in being returned. 

I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong on this.

Bilby says:

01:38pm | 11/02/11

Economist - I developed the bastards for a while, so I can help there. The 90% figure is the *average* return for each press of the button. Over the entire lifetime of the machine, you would expect the actual return to approach the theoretical return. The machine doesn’t know or care for the current value, and certainly doesn’t make calculations because of it. It’s all random probability.

So when you win 2c from your 20c wager, you got a return of 10%. Someone else, somewhere down the line, will get a win of 34c which will all round out to 90% over all. Of course it’s more complicated than that, but I think you get the idea.

Kika says:

01:41pm | 11/02/11

Unfortunately the theory doesn’t work. My local pub seems to be a haven for pokie heads and I can tell you that the vast majority have a lot of children. Natural selection is not something that applies to humans unfortunately.

Tim says:

01:49pm | 11/02/11

Economist,
no the payout percentage is the total returned to players over the lifetime of the machine. So if a machine is set at 90% then over the long term it will return 90% of the amount gambled per spin.

Rose says:

09:57am | 11/02/11

It is exactly the same thing as State Governments, they too have sold their souls for pokie profits. Meanwhile local bands etc struggle to find venues to perform. I am blessed that I remember Adelaide pre-pokies, when the gig guide was chocka- block full of bands and venues. Give a venue a chance for huge but lazy income, which is essentially what pokies provide, and they give up on real entertainment, costs too much, too much effort etc. And people wonder why our young people misbehave, the availability of good, cheap, local entertainment is next to zero in some areas so they have to head into the city.

James A says:

10:33am | 11/02/11

Spot on!

Live and let live.  Its the welfare state that is the root of any problem.

hot tub political machine says:

11:30am | 11/02/11

Too bad for all those kids who live in welfare families eh? Guess its their fault for having chosen deadbeat parents right?

JT says:

12:35pm | 11/02/11

They only live in welfare families because of proposals such as these where we allow deadbeat parents to not take responsibility and live on welfare.

Tim says:

12:44pm | 11/02/11

Exactly JT,
the state has created these welfare families.
If people were forced to take responsibility for their own actions then we wouldn’t have this problem.

James1 says:

01:06pm | 11/02/11

“I said it before, people need to take responsibility for their own actions and this includes consequences.”

Except welfare families, who have no agency and whose condition depends entirely upon the actions of the state.  Can you not see the logical fallacy inherent in your post?  That they are not taking responsibility for themselves, and that the state is responsible for their lack of responsibility?

If the state is responsible, why aren’t you on welfare?  Why aren’t we all?

JT says:

01:18pm | 11/02/11

I’m not sure who you are replying to James1 but there is no logical fallacy in the argument.

These people take no responsibility, the state encourages this attitude and supports it monetarily. It is a cycle and both parties are to blame for it.

James1 says:

01:53pm | 11/02/11

The logical fallacy is that they are not responsible for their irresponsibility.  At first you blamed the welfare state for their condition.  This does not gel with individual responsibility. 

“It is a cycle and both parties are to blame for it.”

Spot on.

Tim says:

02:21pm | 11/02/11

James1,
I’m not sure where you think the logical fallacy is. I can’t see it.
The state is partly (note partly) responsible for the situation these welfare families are in by allowing them fo exist without responsibility for themselves. They do this primarily through monetary means without any mutual obligation.

The rest of us aren’t on welfare because we want more for ourselves and our families than a subsistence life on welfare. We have taken responsibility for ourselves even though it is possible to fall back on the state.

James1 says:

03:07pm | 11/02/11

Tim,  as you say, the blame lays on both the welfare families and the state.  Your earlier words implied that it is the state that holds responsibility.  Clarifying your wording, as you have just now, removes the logical fallacy that the state is responsible for people being irresponsible.

David says:

05:19pm | 11/02/11

Never allow those pokies to escape from the Casino! They are a total disaster. All you’ll create is a bunch of mega-rich Pokie Barons. Most clubs get nothing out of pokies except a tiny turnover that just keeps them afloat against the competition from pubs.

noodle says:

02:43pm | 11/02/11

Australia: if you don’t love it, leave!

clint says:

11:44am | 11/02/11

You might not care ya tool !! but a lot of people do. Communitys will be better of without pokies in footy clubs. Or let’s just get rid of the money grabbing sanfl.

Economist says:

12:42pm | 11/02/11

I don’t care for them. I care for the people they affect and the tax dollars wasted to address their issue.

Tim the Toolman says:

01:54pm | 11/02/11

“I care for the people they affect and the tax dollars wasted to address their issue. “

Yes, pokies run out of the club, smack people over the head and then drag them back into the club, holding them hostage until the bank account is empty.  That sounds way more plausible than some people have no self-control and expect others to do it for them. 

At what point, exactly, do you expect people to stand up and take responsibility for themselves, if you’re always there to hold their hand like a child on their first day of school?  We’re breeding a nation of pathetic half-wits who fall down an escalator if someone neglects to put a sign there saying the stairs aren’t moving.

Really, really sad.  If we’re ever invaded, we’ll be dead because the OH&S guys will be busy dismantling our guns in case we hurt someone.

Bilby says:

06:30am | 13/02/11

A large proportion of those club employees are being supported by problem gamblers, so it would be unfortunate if they had to find jobs that didn’t sponge off addicts but nothing that should be avoided.

As for the clubs, suck it up. I was involved in building a club from scratch with no pokie money that now eclipses the league clubs around it. Put your hand in your pocket and support your local club.

BAG says:

08:52am | 14/02/11

Where do you get your figures from Bilby? A large proportion supported by problem gamblers?

Problem gamblers represent around 0.4% of regular gamblers. The 40% of revenue coming from problem gamblers you read about from Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilke is a huge exaggeration. On current revenue figures it would mean that each problem gambler has to lose around $40,000 per year. Most of them would not earn anywhere near half that (yes, in very rare circumstances some addicts will steal or embezzle money, but they are an even smaller minority). And the clubs that will be most affected, the country based ones, have a much lower rate of problem gambling than city based clubs as it is harder to hide a problem in the country than the city.

The majority of revenue comes from recreational gamblers who don’t have a problem. The vast majority of Club staff are supported by drinkers, diners and recreational gamblers.

It is the recreational gamblers who will walk away if this is introduced thereby cutting Club revenues hugely. The problem gamblers will continue to gamble and will most likely just set a pre-commitment level of spend that they can’t afford anyway thereby reducing the effectiveness of the system.

I am all for helping problem gamblers, and in NSW we have one of the best-practice systems in the world to help those that put their hand up. I will happily go along with a system that has been costed and properly researched. This pre-commitment has not and is just another case of policy-on-the-run by a government that will do anything at all to stay in government.

Problem gamblers should not gamble at all. They should get help. Pre-commitment is like allowing an alcoholic to have a few drinks a day, it just doesn’t help the addict.

Bilby says:

10:08am | 14/02/11

As I mentioned in a different comment I worked in the industry for a while so I’ve seen data not available to the general public. Where does your data come from?

Don’t underestimate exactly how big a problem problem gambling really is. People will spend *everything* they have. After being in the industry, I would fully support the phased withdrawal of all machines from all but specific gambling facilities, such as casinos.

Mr Q says:

02:32pm | 14/02/11

Western Australia says to get over your addiction to pokies.  We don’t have them outside the casino, and yet, somehow, we still have pubs and clubs and sporting teams, bowling greens, tennis courts etc.

You don’t need the money from gambling to prop up these services - but the result is you have to pay a little more each time you use them.  I’m more than willing to pay this bit more to keep the scourge of pokies out of my state.

Fortunately, other than a few shrill hotel owners, the state as a whole is solidly opposed to pokies to the point where I reckon it would be an election losing proposition for a government to propose allowing them here.

Bilby says:

03:10pm | 14/02/11

Mr Q - Each to their own I suppose. You guys have the raunchy ladies, we have the pokies. Come to think of it, so do you