Ladbrokes Coral to closed 900 shops

[michael21]

https://www.racingpost.com/news/ladbrokes-coral-owner-reduces-number-of-betting-shops-at-risk-of-closure-to-900/388783

Not a good time for betting shops

[Cal.]

HAHAHA hope the bitch who used to be my old boss and ripped me off LOSES her job

[michael21]

Paddy Power have said in the past they would not close any of their 320-strong retail estate as a result of the stake cut and reiterated that position on Thursday.Paddy Power have said in the past they would not close any of their 320-strong retail estate as a result of the stake cut and reiterated that position on Thursday.

[Mitchell]

Bye Ladbrokes xx

[user104658]

The issue that LadbrokesCorals has is that they specifically opened machine-oriented shops. There has always been a restriction of 4 machines per shop so in heavy traffic areas (for example, around transport hubs in cities) where there was ALREADY a shop, they were opening MORE shops (sometimes 4 or 5 within 2 mins walk of each other) that were specifically for rush-hour FOBT play and took next to nothing over the counter. The bulk of those shops are now worthless and will close, with one or at most two shops in a "cluster" staying open.

If anyone's interested as to why the losses are smaller than originally predicted:

It's because many people who were habitual "smaller stakes" Roulette players were successfully transitioned onto £2 slots in the 6 months prior to the stake restriction with targetted marketing and offers, and the really heavy "£100-a-spin" players were incentivised to bet OTC (over the counter) on Greyhounds and Horses (especially virtuals).

The biggest problem gamblers were monitored and targetted by name with specifically tailored packs. Toxic AF. Actually the final nail that made me determined to leave (and become a vocal critic of) the industry.

[michael21]

The issue that LadbrokesCorals has is that they specifically opened machine-oriented shops. There has always been a restriction of 4 machines per shop so in heavy traffic areas (for example, around transport hubs in cities) where there was ALREADY a shop, they were opening MORE shops (sometimes 4 or 5 within 2 mins walk of each other) that were specifically for rush-hour FOBT play and took next to nothing over the counter. The bulk of those shops are now worthless and will close, with one or at most two shops in a "cluster" staying open.

If anyone's interested as to why the losses are smaller than originally predicted:

It's because many people who were habitual "smaller stakes" Roulette players were successfully transitioned onto £2 slots in the 6 months prior to the stake restriction with targetted marketing and offers, and the really heavy "£100-a-spin" players were incentivised to bet OTC (over the counter) on Greyhounds and Horses (especially virtuals).

The biggest problem gamblers were monitored and targetted by name with specifically tailored packs. Toxic AF. Actually the final nail that made me determined to leave (and become a vocal critic of) the industry.


That a very interesting insight

Now they pay :dance:

[Kizzy]

How did bookies make money before fixed odds betting terminals? ... good close dome stores, no high St needs every other shop to be a bookies. I predict the move to restrict the stake will aid the economy as more people will have money to put into it not just funnel it into the pockets of the bookmakers.

[Marsh.]

How did bookies make money before fixed odds betting terminals? ...

That was a time when old school race horsing was more popular and there was no online competition. Pretty much the same as the rest of the high street, which has died on its arse.

[Kizzy]

That was a time when old school race horsing was more popular and there was no online competition. Pretty much the same as the rest of the high street, which has died on its arse.

All those closing stores also have online betting sites now that they didn't have in the days of old school horse racing.

[Marsh.]

All those closing stores also have online betting sites now that they didn't have in the days of old school horse racing.

Yes, but they had the FOBT's keeping them going, which is now being targeted with the lower stakes. You asked how they kept going before those.

[Kizzy]

They had competition with other stores when there were only stores then other online sites when they came along... the fixed odds terminals are not going the stakes are just being lowered, they could effectively still take as much of pepoles money...it just might take a bit longer to lose every penny you earn :shrug:

[Marsh.]

They had competition with other stores when there were only stores then other online sites when they came along... the fixed odds terminals are not going the stakes are just being lowered, they could effectively still take as much of pepoles money...it just might take a bit longer to lose every penny you earn :shrug:

Not sure what you're getting at. :laugh:

Basically, the industry took a hit when online gambling took off, but a lot of shops still retained a healthy customer base thanks to the FOBT terminals.

Now, the FOBT terminal rules/regulations have took a hit meaning they're losing a lot of their high staking customers so the shops that relied on those machines due to the virtually non-existent over the counter turnover are now facing closures. TS explained it succinctly in another thread.

The FOBT's could still effectively take as much money as they have done but, realistically, they're not going to. £2 max stake severely reduces the amount that can be won and they're going to lose the major players who used to put unspeakable amounts on one spin.

And a lot of shops are having the number of FOBT's in their shop reduced in an effort to cut costs which is going to affect business. In my area (which has a staggering 24 shops :skull:) they've all cut down to 2 and 3 machines per shop instead of 4 in all of them and at least half of them will probably close in the next few years.

[Kizzy]

How hard is it to understand? I said that the high St can stand to lose these stores, they may have to take a financial hit as they cope with the reduced footfall in the stores but they'll still have the online presence they didn't have years ago, and the FOBTs are still in use.
Basically I'm saying if some of the stores have to close its a good thing, I'm a fan of regulation in this area. £100 on one spin? I don't feel that's responsible at all.

[Marsh.]

I understand perfectly. Chill.

You asked how betting shops survived before FOBT's - I answered.

You then suggested the FOBT's wouldn't really be affected as they aren't going and can still accept money - I offered a suggestion why that is not the case.

Then you suggested the lost custom will just transfer online (so the bookies still get the business) but a lot of those high staking customers will not go online for the reasons TS suggested (Not to mention the remaining "old school" customers who don't gamble online and still used the stores). It also opposes your idea that the FOBT loss will help the economy as they spend elsewhere, as if elsewhere is other forms of gambling it's just the same pit.

[user104658]

How did bookies make money before fixed odds betting terminals? ... good close dome stores, no high St needs every other shop to be a bookies. I predict the move to restrict the stake will aid the economy as more people will have money to put into it not just funnel it into the pockets of the bookmakers.

There's enough racing and football trade to support a number of shops, and pretty much, there were far fewer shops. I'd say that the number of closures more or less reflects the number of shops that were opened purely for machines - although IMO it's being used as an excuse to cut other shops that were already dead weight. They'll use the FOBT limits to justify redundancies that are primarily for other reasons.

Ladbrokes and Corals as separate companies before they merged, had a policy of keeping open unprofitable shops in order to maintain brand loyalty and brand awareness. GVC (the offshore company that now own the merged LadbrokesCoral PLC) abandonned that policy and were planning to offload unprofitable shops anyway. I think the machines changes are, partly, a convenient excuse.

You're also right that the machines are still profit magnets in busy shops even at £2 stakes. Especially because slots have a much higher profit margin than roulette and blackjack. At the point I left I'd say everything had pretty much stabilised and the stakes changes resulted in approx a 1/3 drop in machines profit... My shop was still making £25k a month on FOBTs, easily, plus there was a fairly significant upswing on virtual horses and greyhounds (£100-a-spin roulette guys will bet £200 on a dog without breaking their stride) and also the Betstations (sports betting machines) are flying.

I'm not saying that any of this is a good thing. I say ban casino games and slots everywhere except actual physical casinos, and just flat out burn the rest of the industry. It's a juggernaut designed purely to make legitimate profit from addiction. There's no two ways about it. Internally they barely bother to even pretend otherwise any more.

[Kizzy]

I understand perfectly. Chill.

You asked how betting shops survived before FOBT's - I answered.

You then suggested the FOBT's wouldn't really be affected as they aren't going and can still accept money - I offered a suggestion why that is not the case.

Then you suggested the lost custom will just transfer online (so the bookies still get the business) but a lot of those high staking customers will not go online for the reasons TS suggested (Not to mention the remaining "old school" customers who don't gamble online and still used the stores). It also opposes your idea that the FOBT loss will help the economy as they spend elsewhere, as if elsewhere is other forms of gambling it's just the same pit.

Obviously not, I didn't say fobts wouldn't be affected... of course they'll be affected and the stores will be affected too. I didn't say the lost custom will be transferred online either, The fact these online services exist today was my point.
I still maintain that regulation of this kind will improve the economy, you may not and that's fine.

[Marsh.]

Obviously not, I didn't say fobts wouldn't be affected... of course they'll be affected and the stores will be affected too. I didn't say the lost custom will be transferred online either, The fact these online services exist today was my point.

Yes, they exist and can therefore pick up on the lost custom of the shops. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was connecting the two things you said to make the observation.


I still maintain that regulation of this kind will improve the economy, you may not and that's fine.

I never said it wouldn't.
I merely suggested, with the online options, those opting to not play at the £2 stake limit or be unable to due to a closure of their local shop wouldn't spend their money elsewhere if they transfer their custom online. It would still be going to the betting industry. Just another thought.

[Kizzy]

There's enough racing and football trade to support a number of shops, and pretty much, there were far fewer shops. I'd say that the number of closures more or less reflects the number of shops that were opened purely for machines - although IMO it's being used as an excuse to cut other shops that were already dead weight. They'll use the FOBT limits to justify redundancies that are primarily for other reasons.

Ladbrokes and Corals as separate companies before they merged, had a policy of keeping open unprofitable shops in order to maintain brand loyalty and brand awareness. GVC (the offshore company that now own the merged LadbrokesCoral PLC) abandonned that policy and were planning to offload unprofitable shops anyway. I think the machines changes are, partly, a convenient excuse.

You're also right that the machines are still profit magnets in busy shops even at £2 stakes. Especially because slots have a much higher profit margin than roulette and blackjack. At the point I left I'd say everything had pretty much stabilised and the stakes changes resulted in approx a 1/3 drop in machines profit... My shop was still making £25k a month on FOBTs, easily, plus there was a fairly significant upswing on virtual horses and greyhounds (£100-a-spin roulette guys will bet £200 on a dog without breaking their stride) and also the Betstations (sports betting machines) are flying.

I'm not saying that any of this is a good thing. I say ban casino games and slots everywhere except actual physical casinos, and just flat out burn the rest of the industry. It's a juggernaut designed purely to make legitimate profit from addiction. There's no two ways about it. Internally they barely bother to even pretend otherwise any more.

Great post TS, totally agree!

[Kizzy]

Yes, they exist and can therefore pick up on the lost custom of the shops. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was connecting the two things you said to make the observation.

They may or may not pick up the custom, my point was they will make a profit regardless...it may not be quite so obscene as before the £100 stake FOBTs.

I never said it wouldn't.
I merely suggested, with the online options, those opting to not play at the £2 stake limit or be unable to due to a closure of their local shop wouldn't spend their money elsewhere if they transfer their custom online. It would still be going to the betting industry. Just another thought.

This seems like a contradiction, you suggested FOBT high stake customers wouldn't use an online service?

[Marsh.]

This seems like a contradiction, you suggested FOBT high stake customers wouldn't use an online service?

High stake FOBT customers are not all FOBT customers?

[Kizzy]

High stake FOBT customers are not all FOBT customers?

'a lot of those high staking customers will not go online'


' I merely suggested, with the online options, those opting to not play at the £2 stake limit or be unable to due to a closure of their local shop wouldn't spend their money elsewhere if they transfer their custom online. '

This is what I found contradictory.

[michael21]

So just to sum up

Betting shops bad

Online betting good

[user104658]

So just to sum up

Betting shops bad

Online betting goodAll betting bad and addictive :hmph:.

The ONLY "healthy" gambling I've ever seen is "for interest" e.g. a little £5 football coupon for people who follow the results, or a REASONABLE bet on a sporting event that someone is going to be watching anyway like a football match or tennis game, or small novelty bets like politics / reality TV.

If there was a site that only offered those that would be great [emoji106].

Betting where the primary motivation is the excitement of the bet itself is always bad. Always.

[Marsh.]

'a lot of those high staking customers will not go online'


' I merely suggested, with the online options, those opting to not play at the £2 stake limit or be unable to due to a closure of their local shop wouldn't spend their money elsewhere if they transfer their custom online. '

This is what I found contradictory.

A lot of high staking customers opting not to bet online because you have to provide personal information, and your economy argument not working because some customers who don't spend in the shops due to their closures are spending online is not contradictory. It's two separate statements about two separate things.

Again, "high staking customers" are not all customers.

[Oliver_W]

I guess that's what happens with too much regulation - industries die.

[Marsh.]

I wouldn't say the regulation is too much personally.

[Oliver_W]

I think over a thousand shop closures (counting Will Hill) would beg differ.

[Marsh.]

I think over a thousand shop closures (counting Will Hill) would beg differ.

And I think the millions of people who suffer addiction would beg to differ.

[Vicky.]

So just to sum up

Betting shops bad

Online betting good

Nope, online betting is extremely bad tbh. The industry is ridiculous and even when proper wins happen they use ridiculous terms to not pay out; Betting 'in person; is of course, massively better in that regard. At least you know you will get your winnings, as its direct to your bloody hand.

Also from personal experience, online betting can get out of hand very quickly, the 'safeguards' in place do not work really, as when 'in the mood' someones not really going to purposely press a button that will exclude them for a day or whatever. I have gambled for as long as I can remember, even when a child I would look forward to the 2p pushy machines when I went to the coast, more than anything else. I have lost control 'in person' a hanful of times, but never ever spend as much as I have when lapsing online. I literally clear my bank account before I will stop, regardless of what was meant with that cash..then lend it from people to buy essentials for ****s sake. Its utterly ridiculous when writing it down..I know it is. But it still happens. And even though I have signed up to gamstop, the national exclusion database, casinos still let me sign up and deposit endlessly, BUT, when a withdrawal is requested after a win, they THEN suddenly realise I am on gamstop and use that to refuse to pay out. Its sick, and exploitative. And I know this, yet have an addiction so go back again and again, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I know this yet still do it again and again, thinking maybe this time, they will pay out given they have allowed hundred of deposits and the withdrawal is for half of what I have put in. Yet nope, again and again. So gamstop, the thing most applauded as helping problem gamblers, is utter utter ****e in reality for helping people to stop. All it has done, is give casinos yet another reason to refuse to pay out...but also lets them take deposits endlessly...the gamstop registration is only ever noticed once a withdrawal is requested, time and time again. Its not a mistake, or an error, if its industry wide and over and over tbh.

Did not mean that to go into essays tbh.

[Vicky.]

Regulation for in store places might well be the reason for closures.

But regulation for online gambling is massively lacking. They do what they want, and appear to rip off many many people by suddenly refusing payouts with unfair terms, yet nothnig is done. Apparently thres the UKGC to help, but in reality again, I have contacted them about obvious term abuse (before I signed up to gamstop..when willhill online refused a large win being paid due to some obscure term, despite it being my first ever withdrawal request and money paid into the site was over 3k over time. And the withdrawal was still less than what had been put in) but they wont speak about individual cases...so, useless to single gamblers of course.

Ugh. I don't think its a good thing letting this all out on here as..well I don't really like giving out personal details given whats happened in the past. But when I see this spoke about, I kind of think I have to give my experience too.

And yes, I do know its my own fault, yadayada. I know its stupid. I know I should 'just stop'. But as with any addiction, its not really the case that thats possible and as easy as people think. When in normal mind I know that its stupid. But am not always in normal mind..

[Marsh.]

Oh, yes, the regulation will play a part in their closures. But that doesn't make the regulation too much.

As TS says, exploiting an addiction should never be an accepted form of making money.

[Vicky.]

Oh, yes, the regulation will play a part in their closures. But that doesn't make the regulation too much.

As TS says, exploiting an addiction should never be an accepted form of making money.

Agreed, obviously :p

I wish online regulation was as strict as it appears in instore regulation is. Would help many many people. Apparently its something like 80k people signed on gamstop, even though its a new-ish thing. Many more will still be in grips of addiction though not notice/care yet. And online places are purposely allowing even those signed up to register and deposit. Then suddenly click on when something is asked to be paid out. Its obviously done for the sole reason, of exploiting addictions in such cases. Theres been cases where people have rquested big withdrawals and casinos have spent ages trying to get them to reverse them by offering bonuses and such for cancelling it. Ugh, I could go on forever about this so will stop.

[Marsh.]

So, what's happening, they're not checking the gamstop list when people sign up, only when they try to withdraw?

I take it they block the accounts you already had before self-excluding?

[Vicky.]

So, what's happening, they're not checking the gamstop list when people sign up, only when they try to withdraw?

Yup, though I suspect they are checking gamstop and basically, allowing the account through as they know someone signed up on there is likely a compulsive spender so..profits! Thats a bit conspiracy like though, so lets go with they arent checking on signup instead, making them incompetant, rather than purposely exploitative.

I take it they block the accounts you already had before self-excluding?

Sometimes. Some just leave them. And allow you to deposit and deposit, then being up gamstop if you request a withdrawal. Thats what unibet did to me. And when I brought up how they left the account open despite my registraton, and have let deposit after deposit go through and have only 'randomly' clicked on when a withdrawal was requested, they claimed I had broke gamstops T&Cs by 'trying to access a gambling account when I was signed up to gamstop' :laugh: I posted the email I got in one of the gambling threads..its just utter bollocks. I told them, if they refuse to pay a withdrawal due to a gamstop registration that was made in October 2018 that they are suddenly saying is relevant, then SURELY..any deposits made since october 2018 should also be refunded, as the account was not valid, as they are claiming now? But no, they are keeping all deposits and just blocking the withdrawal, and it seems online regulation allows this. Its not nly unibet this has happened with. Theres a long long list.

And yeah, again before people start, I do take responsibility for my own actins in this. But still think companies should be held to a higher standard and that its simply unfair for casinos to place players in a lose/lose situation on purpose the way they do. And with known problem gamblers too (those already signed up to a 'national database') for ****s sake..

Oh, unibet used the fact that the phone number on my unibet account did not match the one on my gamstop account and thats how the 'mistake' happened. I made the unibet account in 2015 apparently, and its apparently odd that by 2018 I had a different number? They all claim that ONE thing thats diferent on the account, be it phone number or email address, and it 'slips through' the database. Gamstop claim its only 4/5 things that need to match and the account will be caught in the net. But either way, gamstop does have in their T&Cs that its against the 'rules' for problem gamblers to try to log into their old accounts, or to try and make new ones. So obviously they understand gambling addictions 100%.. :rolleyes:

Edit. The unibet email post is http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10616427&postcount=23

[Marsh.]

Ah, it's a tricky one. In work we were told if anyone self-excluded manages to play a machine, print out their ticket give them their money back and ask them to leave. But, obviously if they've managed to actually spin anything or lost anything they don't get a refund.

But then again, if you don't spot someone on your shop's exclusion list that will put your job on the line. I imagine online it's a lot easier to block/check an identity before allowing it access to your site.

Have you tried complaining to gamstop themselves, that despite signing up you've still been allowed to spend money? (Edit: Just read your reply)

I completely agree, yes you're responsible for your own actions, but you've signed up for help for a reason. They should definitely be held to a standard of not accepting money from someone excluded from gambling. That different phone number bulls*t is ridiculous.

Although the whole system is a joke tbh, we have some black white photos that have gone through about 12 different photocopiers and we're supposed to recognise strangers off the back of them. :joker:

[Vicky.]

I don't expect them to payout pay winnings but also refund any loses, that would be unreaonsable and place the casino in a lose/lose situation. Sounds like your shop has it about right. Assuming, if they played say one spin and hit a big win, you would also pay that out, then ask them to leave? Like, not sit and watch them play endlessly, then run over when a win happens and tell them to leave, but no money be given to them for the win?

However, the casinos to decide if they are going to pay out winnings to excluded players (which..would encourage more exlucded players to try and sign up..really) THEN close the account OR if they are going to refund the deposits of players found to be excluded before closing the account. One or the other. Doing what they are currently doing is unethical IMO. They cannot both keep deposits, but also refuse winnings. Thats obviously placing the player in lose/lose.

And them letting players play because phone numbers are different, but then suddenly realising they are on the database after many many deposits..is ridiculous in itself. Especially when they claim they have no actual access to the database? So surely in that case, if they ran the details and they did not come up at the time for whatever reason, then when they run the details when a withdrawal is requested, there still would not be a match, as its the same details. Its just such bollocks. But allowed. So of course they will take advantage of it while they can. But its wrong. Totally wrong.

[Marsh.]

I don't expect them to payout pay winnings but also refund any loses, that would be unreaonsable and place the casino in a lose/lose situation. Sounds like your shop has it about right. Assuming, if they played say one spin and hit a big win, you would also pay that out, then ask them to leave? Like, not sit and watch them play endlessly, then run over when a win happens and tell them to leave, but no money be given to them for the win?

I guess so. If they've already won at the moment we disabled a machine and printed its receipt they'd walk out with the winnings on the ticket.

If they spin something and there's no money left to take out, then they'd leave with nothing. But, obviously, hopefully, staff are spotting people within seconds so an excluded customer isn't able to play anything (and if they do no more than a couple of quid) before they're spotted and asked to leave.

[michael21]

Nope, online betting is extremely bad tbh. The industry is ridiculous and even when proper wins happen they use ridiculous terms to not pay out; Betting 'in person; is of course, massively better in that regard. At least you know you will get your winnings, as its direct to your bloody hand.

Also from personal experience, online betting can get out of hand very quickly, the 'safeguards' in place do not work really, as when 'in the mood' someones not really going to purposely press a button that will exclude them for a day or whatever. I have gambled for as long as I can remember, even when a child I would look forward to the 2p pushy machines when I went to the coast, more than anything else. I have lost control 'in person' a hanful of times, but never ever spend as much as I have when lapsing online. I literally clear my bank account before I will stop, regardless of what was meant with that cash..then lend it from people to buy essentials for ****s sake. Its utterly ridiculous when writing it down..I know it is. But it still happens. And even though I have signed up to gamstop, the national exclusion database, casinos still let me sign up and deposit endlessly, BUT, when a withdrawal is requested after a win, they THEN suddenly realise I am on gamstop and use that to refuse to pay out. Its sick, and exploitative. And I know this, yet have an addiction so go back again and again, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I know this yet still do it again and again, thinking maybe this time, they will pay out given they have allowed hundred of deposits and the withdrawal is for half of what I have put in. Yet nope, again and again. So gamstop, the thing most applauded as helping problem gamblers, is utter utter ****e in reality for helping people to stop. All it has done, is give casinos yet another reason to refuse to pay out...but also lets them take deposits endlessly...the gamstop registration is only ever noticed once a withdrawal is requested, time and time again. Its not a mistake, or an error, if its industry wide and over and over tbh.

Did not mean that to go into essays tbh.

The way I see it is if there not paying you winnings then all bet you have places should be void and all money retrun to you or there can pay what you won there cant have it both ways

[michael21]

Also bank could to help I think

[Vicky.]

The way I see it is if there not paying you winnings then all bet you have places should be void and all money retrun to you or there can pay what you won there cant have it both ways

Exactly. Its one or the other. Can't be both.

If they were not paying winnings because..say..I had made multiple accounts to claim a bonus then of couse thats very different. But if they are not paying because they have suddenly realised I am meant to be excluded for problem gambling, then they should either pay out, or refund all deposits that have been made since the date I am meant to be excluded from, as they claim all bets are void from the date of exclusion when denying winnings...so surely, that means all bets are void. Which would mean all losing bets void from that date also.

[Vicky.]

I guess so. If they've already won at the moment we disabled a machine and printed its receipt they'd walk out with the winnings on the ticket.

If they spin something and there's no money left to take out, then they'd leave with nothing. But, obviously, hopefully, staff are spotting people within seconds so an excluded customer isn't able to play anything (and if they do no more than a couple of quid) before they're spotted and asked to leave.
Yeah, I get expecting staff to notice. Mind, if they are giving crappy photos to memorize then..its quite hard in most cases I would think. We used to be expected to memorize pictures on people on some scheme called 'pubwatch'..was all people who had been issues in bars and had been bad enough to be banned from all on the scheme. But..some of the photos looked **** all like the person and honestly, in a busy nightclub where we were serving literally hundreds of people per night, I think it was kind of unreasonable to expect us to recognise a list of like 50 people who were meant to be barred. Its a bit easier for the bouncers as they are meant to check people properly, but my job was shouting 'whos next' to a gaggle of people..then sometimes not even seeing whos shouting..doing the drinks asap!

If in theory, someone who was winning would get their winnings then be chucked out then thats fair. And you obviously should not refund anything of losers (which would be quite hard anyway, as you wouldn't know they were telling the truth about losses in an actual shop) because you pay winners.

Its this not paying winners and also keeping deposits, I find massively unfair. As I said, they should do one or the other, not both.
Also bank could to help I think

Bank can't help as I authorized the deposits. If I claimed I didn't and paid by debit card I could potentially do a chargeback of all I had ever deposited, but I feel a dick doing that and its technically fraud too :p Plus its likely to be taken back from me when the casino replies to the banks letters.

[Marsh.]

Exactly. Its one or the other. Can't be both.

If they were not paying winnings because..say..I had made multiple accounts to claim a bonus then of couse thats very different. But if they are not paying because they have suddenly realised I am meant to be excluded for problem gambling, then they should either pay out, or refund all deposits that have been made since the date I am meant to be excluded from, as they claim all bets are void from the date of exclusion when denying winnings...so surely, that means all bets are void. Which would mean all losing bets void from that date also.

Completely agree with this.

[Marsh.]

Yeah, I get expecting staff to notice. Mind, if they are giving crappy photos to memorize then..its quite hard in most cases I would think. We used to be expected to memorize pictures on people on some scheme called 'pubwatch'..was all people who had been issues in bars and had been bad enough to be banned from all on the scheme. But..some of the photos looked **** all like the person and honestly, in a busy nightclub where we were serving literally hundreds of people per night, I think it was kind of unreasonable to expect us to recognise a list of like 50 people who were meant to be barred. Its a bit easier for the bouncers as they are meant to check people properly, but my job was shouting 'whos next' to a gaggle of people..then sometimes not even seeing whos shouting..doing the drinks asap!

Yeah. :joker: The couple of shops I go between are quite quiet so not too bad but some of the busier ones it's ridiculous.

The same for all the conmen on fuzzy CCTV so we're looking for a faceless man in jeans called "Bob". :joker:

[Vicky.]

The same for all the conmen on fuzzy CCTV so we're looking for a faceless man in jeans called "Bob".
:D

Reminds me of a time the police came in to let us know that if someone who was middle aged, wearing jeans and shirt, average height and build and dark hair..came into the bar, we were not to serve them and to call the police to let them know. He might also have changed clothes so bear that in mind.. Erm. So any bloke with dark hair and middle aged (which can span anything to like 30-60 in reality) comes in and we had to say no, detain them (how?) and call the police? That was half of our ****ing clientele for ****s sake..obviously, we did not do this and still had no problems so either he did not come in, or had chilled by that point, but come on..really...

[user104658]

Yeah. :joker: The couple of shops I go between are quite quiet so not too bad but some of the busier ones it's ridiculous.



The same for all the conmen on fuzzy CCTV so we're looking for a faceless man in jeans called "Bob". :joker:At one point we had 37 active self exclusions, 10 dodgy faces to watch for, and three with full trespass order... And we were short on full time staff so at least three days a week we had staff members who weren't even based in the shop. The chances of people actually knowing those faces, if they're not regular staff members who already knew the customer when they were active, are zilch :shrug:. The trespass orders everyone will know because there's usually a juicy story behind it :smug:. The rest, it's just unrealistic.

Vicky: the stance you're being given makes no sense. Either the bets are void, in which case you get back any money lost... Or they're not, and you're entitled to any winnings that are left in the account. They can't have it both ways. Though I gave seen funds being "frozen" in an account for dubious "security reasons" - over £1100 - and it took the guy 7 months of phone calls to get the money released.

[Vicky.]

I think the exclusion schemes for physical shops are a bit stupid in all honesty. You can only really expect staff to recognise people who are regulars. Like, if I excluded from the place I use, it would be easy as the staff know me on sight. But to expect that to translate to every shop in a 20 mile radious, and to expect people in a shop I had never used to recognise me and chuck me out..would clearly be stupid and..unworkable.

Its not the case online though. They should recognise people based off a national database. As really surely, only the name, DOB, and address should be enough, **** emails and phone numbers matching.

[Vicky.]

Vicky: the stance you're being given makes no sense. Either the bets are void, in which case you get back any money lost... Or they're not, and you're entitled to any winnings that are left in the account. They can't have it both ways.

Which has been my point for months now :laugh: But it seems theres no way realistically to solve this as the gambling comission cares not. ECOGRA agree with me and have said in multiple judgements that its not enough to simply deny winnings, in such a case deposits should be refunded too. Havent yet launched an actual ecogra thing yet though as it seems pointless as they do not actually have the power to make sites pay out either way..just to advise them. And a site thats being so..ridiculous, is not going to listen to pleasant advice to do the opposite of what they are doing. As what they are doing is clearly on purpose, its meant to be this way as its a loophole they have found.

Edit. And even despite this, despite being in the same battle with multiple operators for months..I will still at some stage usually when medicated, decide its a good idea to do it again :bored: Its so ridiculous when looked at with current mind.

[user104658]

I think the exclusion schemes for physical shops are a bit stupid in all honesty. You can only really expect staff to recognise people who are regulars. Like, if I excluded from the place I use, it would be easy as the staff know me on sight. But to expect that to translate to every shop in a 20 mile radious, and to expect people in a shop I had never used to recognise me and chuck me out..would clearly be stupid and..unworkable.

Its not the case online though. They should recognise people based off a national database. As really surely, only the name, DOB, and address should be enough, **** emails and phone numbers matching.

Exactly. If Terry who has been in every day for five years self excludes in his regular shop and comes in you can just say "sigh... **** off Terry." but self exclusions from 20+ miles away come in sometimes, unless it's a very distinctive looking person you're just not going to know.

As for details matching up it does seem like nonsense that they wouldn't. If you try to set up a new account in shop and the name, d.o.b and postcode match it'll flag as a duplicate straight away.

[Vicky.]

Exactly. If Terry who has been in every day for five years self excludes in his regular shop and comes in you can just say "sigh... **** off Terry." but self exclusions from 20+ miles away come in sometimes, unless it's a very distinctive looking person you're just not going to know.

As for details matching up it does seem like nonsense that they wouldn't. If you try to set up a new account in shop and the name, d.o.b and postcode match it'll flag as a duplicate straight away.

Quite. Its just obvious bollocks to me. But designed to be obvious bollocks tbh. Its tiring dealing with them and their excuses sometimes. Mind, unibet quickly decided this was the 'final say on the matter and we will not reply to further correspondance'. The others have ****ed me around with excuses for a long time now :laugh:

Oddly, only 'betat' has been fair in this so far. They also denied a withdrawal mind, only clicked onto it when requested and tried the 'only just realised you are on gamstop' thing. When I told them if bets were void due to exclusion the deposits should surely be refunded, they refunded the deposits without question. And the deposit amounts were more than the withdrawal request too, a fair amount more too. So if they were trying to scam me, they could have went 'ok, well heres your withdrawal' but they chose to go with 'we said all bets were void so that includes losing ones' which IMO, gives them much integrity and kind of sets them aside from the likes of unibet who will shower bollocks upon bollocks to get out of paying anything.

I do kind of think though you should not have to tell them stuff like that, if they do have a policy where all bets are void from date of exclusion then, when exclusion is discovered, they should close the accont, and void all bets at that stage..back to the exclusion date, including losing ones, and return to the player whatever the balance is after all the voiding is done.

[Kizzy]

A lot of high staking customers opting not to bet online because you have to provide personal information, and your economy argument not working because some customers who don't spend in the shops due to their closures are spending online is not contradictory. It's two separate statements about two separate things.

Again, "high staking customers" are not all customers.
You are tying yourself up in knots here.. if the big spenders don't want to bet online and the FOBT is capped where are they going to spend their money?
It may not help the economy but i hope it does, should bookies close and the temptation at every turn removed on the high St hopefully those who may have an issue will be able to resist the urge.
I'm aware high staking customers are not all customers, they are however those who are being aided by the regulation here. Again I think regulation is a good thing and store closures are a good thing. Yes theRe are some job losses but ultimately I'd say that's for for the greater good of aiding gambling addicts.

[user104658]

You are tying yourself up in knots here.. if the big spenders don't want to bet online and the FOBT is capped where are they going to spend their money?

It may not help the economy but i hope it does, should bookies close and the temptation at every turn removed on the high St hopefully those who may have an issue will be able to resist the urge.

I'm aware high staking customers are not all customers, they are however those who are being aided by the regulation here. Again I think regulation is a good thing and store closures are a good thing. Yes theRe are some job losses but ultimately I'd say that's for for the greater good of aiding gambling addicts.I think it helping the economy is sadly a stretch; a lot of the closures may well actively damage local economies is the sad reality and I'm honestly amazed that the government went ahead with capping the machines, as they are HEAVILY taxed (government has been profiting off of machines addicts quite nicely [emoji106]).

The benefit to people with gambling addiction though is more than worth it. Especially given that, in my experience, the number of gamblers who have at least a low-level bona-fide addiction is MUCH higher than the industry would like people to believe.

[bots]

I think the fact so many shops are now closing shows how exploitative the previous rules were. It's not dissimilar to curbing drug use/addiction and forcing the narcos to shutdown

[Twosugars]

Opinion piece in the Guardian

I ran a bookies for 12 years – they deserve no sympathy for these store closures
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/08/bookies-store-closures-gamblers-jobs

Reforms to fixed-odds betting machines were always going to hit this profit-driven industry, although closures will send more gamblers online

Mon 8 Jul 2019 14.32 BST Last modified on Mon 8 Jul 2019 14.39

Since the introduction of fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in 2001, UK bookmakers have contributed towards increasing social degradation in our communities. I’ve seen it happen during my 12 years as a bookmaker branch manager. Gambling has always been a vice for people with either enough disposable income that only the winning counts – or for those drawn in by the promise of quick financial gain. But there is something sinister about FOBTs, in that they have increased access to quick winnings or losses on the high street, creating an environment more like a miniature casino.

More training time was given to the launch of a new FOBT product than to social responsibility awareness
Now bookmakers blame stricter regulation of FOBTs for the anticipated closure of about a quarter of betting shops. In my experience, the machines account for about 50% of the profit in a typical branch of a high-street bookmaker, and in some cases much more. Take a walk down your local high street and you may well find multiple outlets of the same company not far from each other – often the shop has a surface area much larger than is needed for its customer base. The larger shops were typically taken on long-term leases in anticipation of the government relaxing the “four FOBTs per shop” rule. As the legislation was never changed, the only way a bookmaker could effectively increase its FOBT market share in the high street was by opening up more branches relatively close to one another. This allowed some bookmakers to have 12 or more FOBTs along one stretch of road.

I can tell you that in my experience, these companies view social responsibility as a check-box exercise, simply allowing them to keep trading. More training time was given to the launch of a new FOBT product than to social responsibility awareness. If bookmakers followed the mantra of “only bet what you can afford to lose”, there would be no high-street bookmakers. Some of the busiest and most profitable shops I have managed have been in areas of social deprivation – not the ones in the likes of Knightsbridge or Chelsea. Bookies thrive on desperation.

What I have found most concerning is seeing middle management get annoyed when their most profitable customer self-excludes, dismissing concerns about the source of a customer’s funds with either “we can’t prove they don’t have savings” or “don’t ask too many questions”. The online division may completely ignore a retail manager’s concerns about a customer’s mental wellbeing, effectively allowing that customer to go home and gamble irresponsibly online. That then pushes staff to poach high-rolling customers from other companies by harassing them with free bets, or by standing outside another branch with promotions and offers.

Where does social responsibility begin to fit into this business model? It doesn’t. Of course a business needs to make a profit to be successful. But bookmakers have been shortsighted, drawn in by FOBTs’ quick profits and gambling on legislation either remaining in place or being relaxed. Years of austerity, combined with an ever-widening wage gap, have perhaps made them a subject of frustration. Had they hedged their bets and acted more responsibly, bookmakers would not be in the situation they are facing now. “Greed” is the appropriate word, without a care for how their financial gains continue to destroy thousands of families.

Now that FOBTs have had restrictions imposed on them, cutting their maximum stake per spin from £100 to £2, it’s only natural that the bookmakers will have to shed hundreds of unprofitable shops. These sites will either be peripheral ones that were set up purely for those extra four FOBTs or branches where the sports turnover has taken a hit due to a lack of investment in that area. In Ireland you see many high-street bookmakers continue to make a profit from a sports-centric business model, as FOBTs are not legal there.

Many will argue that the closure of these betting shops will benefit society as a whole. I would counter that a lot of the FOBT customers will instead move their losses online, while thousands more will suffer due to redundancy. If I were a betting man, my money would be on those shops in low-earning residential areas being the most likely to remain open in any case, continuing to show a healthy profit. Gambler and employee alike, this will ultimately affect those who can afford to lose the least.

• Owen Rees worked for a UK bookmaker for 12 years and is now a stay-at-home father

[Marsh.]

You are tying yourself up in knots here.. if the big spenders don't want to bet online and the FOBT is capped where are they going to spend their money?
It may not help the economy but i hope it does, should bookies close and the temptation at every turn removed on the high St hopefully those who may have an issue will be able to resist the urge.
I'm aware high staking customers are not all customers, they are however those who are being aided by the regulation here. Again I think regulation is a good thing and store closures are a good thing. Yes theRe are some job losses but ultimately I'd say that's for for the greater good of aiding gambling addicts.

I've not tied up any knots. You're the one misunderstanding what I've written.

I didn't say the economy wouldn't be affected. I said the customers who either willingly move away from stores or are forced to due to store closures will most likely go online, therefore not having much of an impact outside of the industry. Therefore, based off that, I found your hypothesis of the economy gaining signifanctly less likely.

The big stakers, however, will be turned away from online gambling. The people I refer to are a minority tens of thousand of pounds a month gamblers. Not your more casual gamblers who make up a majority of the customer base in my own experience. But, again, there's no real guarantee that someone who is hooked on gambling to that degree will not find some way of emptying it all into FOBT/Bandit machines instead of spending all that cash on something else.

Literally all I said Kizzy, in two separate posts.

I hope the addicts and problem gamblers benefit from the legislation too. But as long as gambling exists the temptation will be there and, sadly, the industry as a whole isn't budging.

[Kizzy]

I think it helping the economy is sadly a stretch; a lot of the closures may well actively damage local economies is the sad reality and I'm honestly amazed that the government went ahead with capping the machines, as they are HEAVILY taxed (government has been profiting off of machines addicts quite nicely [emoji106]).

The benefit to people with gambling addiction though is more than worth it. Especially given that, in my experience, the number of gamblers who have at least a low-level bona-fide addiction is MUCH higher than the industry would like people to believe.

We all know how adept companies are at avoiding tax though however heavily that industry is taxed? Maybe the govt aren't finding they're getting the cut of these high stake machines they were expecting? As you say were it such a cash cow would they be taking action? The ethical high Road is not what the modern conservative is known for. It prob is a stretch I guess the addicts will have to access support before any money they were giving the bookies would be spent in other ways, saved or reinvested.

[Kizzy]

I've not tied up any knots. You're the one misunderstanding what I've written.

I didn't say the economy wouldn't be affected. I said the customers who either willingly move away from stores or are forced to due to store closures will most likely go online, therefore not having much of an impact outside of the industry. Therefore, based off that, I found your hypothesis of the economy gaining signifanctly less likely.

The big stakers, however, will be turned away from online gambling. The people I refer to are a minority tens of thousand of pounds a month gamblers. Not your more casual gamblers who make up a majority of the customer base in my own experience. But, again, there's no real guarantee that someone who is hooked on gambling to that degree will not find some way of emptying it all into FOBT/Bandit machines instead of spending all that cash on something else.

Literally all I said Kizzy, in two separate posts.

I hope the addicts and problem gamblers benefit from the legislation too. But as long as gambling exists the temptation will be there and, sadly, the industry as a whole isn't budging.

I get that you don't feel it will benefit the economy you have stated that several times... personally I still do maybe it won't be instantaneous but as those impulsive high stake customers are prevented from using the fobts to lose vast amounts of money in time they may seek help or find a new outlet fir their addiction?..

[Marsh.]

I get that you don't feel it will benefit the economy you have stated that several times... personally I still do maybe it won't be instantaneous but as those impulsive high stake customers are prevented from using the fobts to lose vast amounts of money in time they may seek help or find a new outlet fir their addiction?..

No, I don't feel it would to any significant extent. But I haven't said my own viewpoint of it means that it wouldn't. I'll be honest and say I don't know. Just from my own perspective I don't think it likely.

They can still lose vast amounts of money. We had a few come in and vow it wasn't the same anymore and they'd never play again. But they're compulsion to play has broght them back and glued them to the shop seats for hours at a time.

I would like to think the majority of them would get help and spend all that cash on something worthwhile.

[michael21]

Exactly. Its one or the other. Can't be both.

If they were not paying winnings because..say..I had made multiple accounts to claim a bonus then of couse thats very different. But if they are not paying because they have suddenly realised I am meant to be excluded for problem gambling, then they should either pay out, or refund all deposits that have bei en made since the date I am meant to be excluded from, as they claim all bets are void from the date of exclusion when denying winnings...so surely, that means all bets are void. Which would mean all losing bets void from that date also.

Yea its really bad also when I have a win coral will give be a free £2 bet for back jack or roulette I think there idea is that if I lose the £2 I keep betting till it all gone but I withdraw it so that don't happen


Do you still gamble or have you given up

[Vicky.]

Ha. I 'gave up' online gambling in October last year whe I signed upto gamstop thinking it would be a useful tool in stopping me gambling, as advertised. I wish that meant I had not done it but no..still an issue at times. Its only very certain times though, its not really something I think about constantly anymore, more..lapses that lead to like..10 hour night bouts of just being utterly ridiculous. Seems to be generally when am medicated, as have said, I also have to be very very bored, usually in a optomistic mood, sometimes have recently been stressing about something I want to buy/pay for but do not have enough cash, and then with these things present, also the voice in the back of my head saying 'no dont, it wont end well' also disappears..when I think 'ah, I could try my luck'. The once the first deposit of the night is made and the actual spinning starts, well at that point am beyond reason. Even if the voice comes back I argue with it about how 'nah, it will be fine, a big win has to come soon' and such :bored: Ugh.

Its even worse recently, well since October, than it ever was. Because I know I have no chance of winning anything at all, as anywhere that lets me play will pull the 'excluded card' if I do happen to win. Yet still do it. And cannot really explain it.

I have found out through personal experience that gamstop is absolutely not a decent tool for problem gamblers, if anything, it makes things worse as it just gives operators who do still let you play despite all crowing about responsible gambling and such..yet another excuse to deny legitimate winnings. So instead of having a problem where you spend more than you can afford, but sometimes get a big win which 'makes up for it', you have situations where you have not had a win paid in 9 months, but still deposit even though you know wins are at best highly unlikely to be paid D:

[michael21]

Ha. I 'gave up' online gambling in October last year whe I signed upto gamstop thinking it would be a useful tool in stopping me gambling, as advertised. I wish that meant I had not done it but no..still an issue at times. Its only very certain times though, its not really something I think about constantly anymore, more..lapses that lead to like..10 hour night bouts of just being utterly ridiculous. Seems to be generally when am medicated, as have said, I also have to be very very bored, usually in a optomistic mood, sometimes have recently been stressing about something I want to buy/pay for but do not have enough cash, and then with these things present, also the voice in the back of my head saying 'no dont, it wont end well' also disappears..when I think 'ah, I could try my luck'. The once the first deposit of the night is made and the actual spinning starts, well at that point am beyond reason. Even if the voice comes back I argue with it about how 'nah, it will be fine, a big win has to come soon' and such :bored: Ugh.

Its even worse recently, well since October, than it ever was. Because I know I have no chance of winning anything at all, as anywhere that lets me play will pull the 'excluded card' if I do happen to win. Yet still do it. And cannot really explain it.

I have found out through personal experience that gamstop is absolutely not a decent tool for problem gamblers, if anything, it makes things worse as it just gives operators who do still let you play despite all crowing about responsible gambling and such..yet another excuse to deny legitimate winnings. So instead of having a problem where you spend more than you can afford, but sometimes get a big win which 'makes up for it', you have situations where you have not had a win paid in 9 months, but still deposit even though you know wins are at best highly unlikely to be paid D:

You need to go on the news or talk to news papers this needs highlighting

[Kizzy]

Ha. I 'gave up' online gambling in October last year whe I signed upto gamstop thinking it would be a useful tool in stopping me gambling, as advertised. I wish that meant I had not done it but no..still an issue at times. Its only very certain times though, its not really something I think about constantly anymore, more..lapses that lead to like..10 hour night bouts of just being utterly ridiculous. Seems to be generally when am medicated, as have said, I also have to be very very bored, usually in a optomistic mood, sometimes have recently been stressing about something I want to buy/pay for but do not have enough cash, and then with these things present, also the voice in the back of my head saying 'no dont, it wont end well' also disappears..when I think 'ah, I could try my luck'. The once the first deposit of the night is made and the actual spinning starts, well at that point am beyond reason. Even if the voice comes back I argue with it about how 'nah, it will be fine, a big win has to come soon' and such :bored: Ugh.

Its even worse recently, well since October, than it ever was. Because I know I have no chance of winning anything at all, as anywhere that lets me play will pull the 'excluded card' if I do happen to win. Yet still do it. And cannot really explain it.

I have found out through personal experience that gamstop is absolutely not a decent tool for problem gamblers, if anything, it makes things worse as it just gives operators who do still let you play despite all crowing about responsible gambling and such..yet another excuse to deny legitimate winnings. So instead of having a problem where you spend more than you can afford, but sometimes get a big win which 'makes up for it', you have situations where you have not had a win paid in 9 months, but still deposit even though you know wins are at best highly unlikely to be paid D:

So you can deposit your money and lose but if you win they keep it for the best part of a year?... and they may never pay you because youre excluded if you try to withdraw? Wow :/
I did something silly, turns out addictions are transferable... a guy at work told me about his gf winning £500 on online bingo... so I had a go, and after a bit I won £500! Thing is then I was like a mad thing, staying up all night and within a week had given them £300 back! :( I told my daughter what was going on and my son deleted my account for me... but they don't make it easy to do, they ask you why you want to...if you'd rather set limits it was a mare :(

[michael21]

So you can deposit your money and lose but if you win they keep it for the best part of a year?... and they may never pay you because youre excluded if you try to withdraw? Wow :/
I did something silly, turns out addictions are transferable... a guy at work told me about his gf winning £500 on online bingo... so I had a go, and after a bit I won £500! Thing is then I was like a mad thing, staying up all night and within a week had given them £300 back! :( I told my daughter what was going on and my son deleted my account for me... but they don't make it easy to do, they ask you why you want to...if you'd rather set limits it was a mare :(

There might try and email you free bets just delete it

[Vicky.]

So you can deposit your money and lose but if you win they keep it for the best part of a year?... and they may never pay you because youre excluded if you try to withdraw? Wow :/
I did something silly, turns out addictions are transferable... a guy at work told me about his gf winning £500 on online bingo... so I had a go, and after a bit I won £500! Thing is then I was like a mad thing, staying up all night and within a week had given them £300 back! :( I told my daughter what was going on and my son deleted my account for me... but they don't make it easy to do, they ask you why you want to...if you'd rather set limits it was a mare :(

In a week?! Would have taken me a few hours to play that back :laugh:

And yup, thats the situation. Its stupid, and I am stupid for keep going on them too but..I cant hep being stupid it seems :D

[Kizzy]

In a week?! Would have taken me a few hours to play that back :laugh:

And yup, thats the situation. Its stupid, and I am stupid for keep going on them too but..I cant hep being stupid it seems :D

If work hadn't got in the way who knows lol... your not stupid addiction is horrible and you are NOT alone these places prey on us if they didn't market themselves to hook people in like they do , give you a little win a a sweetener then sit back when your depositing your wages they'd be out of business.

[user104658]

If work hadn't got in the way who knows lol... your not stupid addiction is horrible and you are NOT alone these places prey on us if they didn't market themselves to hook people in like they do , give you a little win a a sweetener then sit back when your depositing your wages they'd be out of business.

This is 100% correct, and there's also literally NO "profile" of a problem gambler when it comes to machines. Tell me that someone is hooked on the horses or dogs and I can tell you that 90%+ of them are going to be men aged between 50 and 70. Tell me that someone has a football betting problem and it's a good bet that they're a younger male, often age 21 - 35.

Machines? It's a **** show. Guys who have just turned 18, girls on their way out to a club, older blokes who used to bet over the counter but now funnel all their spare cash into the things, mums out shopping with their kids knocking at the door for them to hurry up, little old ladies from the bingo hall. People in expensive suits, people in labourer gear, people who have clearly just rolled off their couch after a joint. Literally anyone you point at in the street :shrug:.

[user104658]

Opinion piece in the Guardian

I ran a bookies for 12 years – they deserve no sympathy for these store closures
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/08/bookies-store-closures-gamblers-jobs

Reforms to fixed-odds betting machines were always going to hit this profit-driven industry, although closures will send more gamblers online

Mon 8 Jul 2019 14.32 BST Last modified on Mon 8 Jul 2019 14.39

Since the introduction of fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in 2001, UK bookmakers have contributed towards increasing social degradation in our communities. I’ve seen it happen during my 12 years as a bookmaker branch manager. Gambling has always been a vice for people with either enough disposable income that only the winning counts – or for those drawn in by the promise of quick financial gain. But there is something sinister about FOBTs, in that they have increased access to quick winnings or losses on the high street, creating an environment more like a miniature casino.

More training time was given to the launch of a new FOBT product than to social responsibility awareness
Now bookmakers blame stricter regulation of FOBTs for the anticipated closure of about a quarter of betting shops. In my experience, the machines account for about 50% of the profit in a typical branch of a high-street bookmaker, and in some cases much more. Take a walk down your local high street and you may well find multiple outlets of the same company not far from each other – often the shop has a surface area much larger than is needed for its customer base. The larger shops were typically taken on long-term leases in anticipation of the government relaxing the “four FOBTs per shop” rule. As the legislation was never changed, the only way a bookmaker could effectively increase its FOBT market share in the high street was by opening up more branches relatively close to one another. This allowed some bookmakers to have 12 or more FOBTs along one stretch of road.

I can tell you that in my experience, these companies view social responsibility as a check-box exercise, simply allowing them to keep trading. More training time was given to the launch of a new FOBT product than to social responsibility awareness. If bookmakers followed the mantra of “only bet what you can afford to lose”, there would be no high-street bookmakers. Some of the busiest and most profitable shops I have managed have been in areas of social deprivation – not the ones in the likes of Knightsbridge or Chelsea. Bookies thrive on desperation.

What I have found most concerning is seeing middle management get annoyed when their most profitable customer self-excludes, dismissing concerns about the source of a customer’s funds with either “we can’t prove they don’t have savings” or “don’t ask too many questions”. The online division may completely ignore a retail manager’s concerns about a customer’s mental wellbeing, effectively allowing that customer to go home and gamble irresponsibly online. That then pushes staff to poach high-rolling customers from other companies by harassing them with free bets, or by standing outside another branch with promotions and offers.

Where does social responsibility begin to fit into this business model? It doesn’t. Of course a business needs to make a profit to be successful. But bookmakers have been shortsighted, drawn in by FOBTs’ quick profits and gambling on legislation either remaining in place or being relaxed. Years of austerity, combined with an ever-widening wage gap, have perhaps made them a subject of frustration. Had they hedged their bets and acted more responsibly, bookmakers would not be in the situation they are facing now. “Greed” is the appropriate word, without a care for how their financial gains continue to destroy thousands of families.

Now that FOBTs have had restrictions imposed on them, cutting their maximum stake per spin from £100 to £2, it’s only natural that the bookmakers will have to shed hundreds of unprofitable shops. These sites will either be peripheral ones that were set up purely for those extra four FOBTs or branches where the sports turnover has taken a hit due to a lack of investment in that area. In Ireland you see many high-street bookmakers continue to make a profit from a sports-centric business model, as FOBTs are not legal there.

Many will argue that the closure of these betting shops will benefit society as a whole. I would counter that a lot of the FOBT customers will instead move their losses online, while thousands more will suffer due to redundancy. If I were a betting man, my money would be on those shops in low-earning residential areas being the most likely to remain open in any case, continuing to show a healthy profit. Gambler and employee alike, this will ultimately affect those who can afford to lose the least.

• Owen Rees worked for a UK bookmaker for 12 years and is now a stay-at-home father

I just saw this 2S and I could practically have written it. 9.5 years in the industry, 4.5 managing. Though I think they're actually quite lenient in their assessment :joker: "More training time was given to the launch of a new FOBT product than to social responsibility awareness."

MORE time? A massive understatement. "Social Responsibility" is a 10 minute training slideshow in an app with a questionnaire at the end... and most people just copy each other's answers. The launch of new machines is treated like the event of the decade with MONTHS of promotion and planning.

[michael21]

I not going to bet till the new football season starts I think its the 3 angust

[user104658]

I not going to bet till the new football season starts I think its the 3 angustJust stick with a nice little £5, 5 or 6 game, acca. You can't really go wrong there. A nice little chunk if you're lucky and who really misses a fiver.

Anything more than that and you're heading into murky waters.

[Vicky.]

This is 100% correct, and there's also literally NO "profile" of a problem gambler when it comes to machines. Tell me that someone is hooked on the horses or dogs and I can tell you that 90%+ of them are going to be men aged between 50 and 70. Tell me that someone has a football betting problem and it's a good bet that they're a younger male, often age 21 - 35.

Machines? It's a **** show. Guys who have just turned 18, girls on their way out to a club, older blokes who used to bet over the counter but now funnel all their spare cash into the things, mums out shopping with their kids knocking at the door for them to hurry up, little old ladies from the bingo hall. People in expensive suits, people in labourer gear, people who have clearly just rolled off their couch after a joint. Literally anyone you point at in the street :shrug:.
A fair few times through my life I have 'popped in' to the bandits on my way to meet friends and ended up having to go home rather than meet anyone, or make up some excuse saying I haven't been paid so can anyone lend me anything. :bored: Whenever I go in, as you say its a mix of people. The low stakes ones tend to be mainly little old ladies sitting there all day from what I have seen. But anything above like 10p per spin, its all people. I once saw my doctor in there, shovelling hundred in..its insane. And as I keep saying I know its insane, yet I still convince myself I can just pop in, try a tenner and maybe come away loaded, and if not, its only a tenner. If only it stayed at only a tenner tbh..

[user104658]

A fair few times through my life I have 'popped in' to the bandits on my way to meet friends and ended up having to go home rather than meet anyone, or make up some excuse saying I haven't been paid so can anyone lend me anything. :bored: Whenever I go in, as you say its a mix of people. The low stakes ones tend to be mainly little old ladies sitting there all day from what I have seen. But anything above like 10p per spin, its all people. I once saw my doctor in there, shovelling hundred in..its insane. And as I keep saying I know its insane, yet I still convince myself I can just pop in, try a tenner and maybe come away loaded, and if not, its only a tenner. If only it stayed at only a tenner tbh..

Vicky you would be flabbergasted at how much money some of those little old ladies funnel into those machines. £20 after £20 note on £2 slots for an hour.

[Vicky.]

Vicky you would be flabbergasted at how much money some of those little old ladies funnel into those machines. £20 after £20 note on £2 slots for an hour.

Yeah..one was moaning to be once as she was apparently 180 down..while playing on a 10p machine. The jackpot was a fiver..and she was still chasing her moneyback. Felt so sorry for her.

[user104658]

Yeah..one was moaning to be once as she was apparently 180 down..while playing on a 10p machine. The jackpot was a fiver..and she was still chasing her moneyback. Felt so sorry for her.

Ahh I had a friend at University who was like that on the oldstyle bandits. He'd happily spend £40 chasing a £25 jackpot :think:.

[Vicky.]

Ahh I had a friend at University who was like that on the oldstyle bandits. He'd happily spend £40 chasing a £25 jackpot :think:.

I have done that and much much more. Have been known to spend hundreds on the 25 jackpot partytimes. Evil things :joker:

[user104658]

I have done that and much much more. Have been known to spend hundreds on the 25 jackpot partytimes. Evil things :joker:

To be fair, the only profitable gambling I've ever done was on a clearly broken £25 jackpot. Every weekend me and a couple of friends used to go to the local pub (when we were like 16 :joker: ) with £5 each, drop the £25 jackpot twice and have a nice little night out. There was a feature that dropped the jackpot every time, obviously a bug of some sort. We did it for nearly 10 months, being careful not to tip them off by getting greedy, and then some tit discovered the same thing and dropped the jackpot 4 times in a row. The next week the machine was gone :bawling:.

[AnnieK]

Gambling is such a dangerous addicition as unlike other addictions, alcohol, drugs etc it has no outward symptoms. I have heard of really wealthy professional types literally going bankrupt or turning to fraud to fund it and no-one, even those closest to them were aware they even had a problem. Its frightening really.

I don't think mobile type app adverts should be allowed on TV either.

[Marsh.]

Yeah, it's strange. There's a law against shops advertising the machine games in the windows/outside yet the TV is full of those online gaming/bingo adverts.

[user104658]

Gambling is such a dangerous addicition as unlike other addictions, alcohol, drugs etc it has no outward symptoms. I have heard of really wealthy professional types literally going bankrupt or turning to fraud to fund it and no-one, even those closest to them were aware they even had a problem. Its frightening really.

I don't think mobile type app adverts should be allowed on TV either.Yeah, it's the "no hangover". All of the symptoms are there when problem gamblers are actively gambling - the adrenaline shakes, the agitation, some literally sweat profusely, they get angry, some can lash out etc. but as soon as the session is over they can put their game face back on and walk away looking outwardly no different to how they did when they walked in.

Some other addictions can be similarly "silent" at first , like prescription pills and even early stage "functional" alcoholism, but those will eventually start to show physically as they progress. A problem gambler can be at absolute rock bottom (I've seen people lose houses and businesses) and still have no physical sign of the problem.

[user104658]

Yeah, it's strange. There's a law against shops advertising the machine games in the windows/outside yet the TV is full of those online gaming/bingo adverts.That's relatively new as well though, windows used to be full of games posters.

[michael21]

That's relatively new as well though, windows used to be full of games posters.

Some window will have close in them

[Beso]

Yeah, it's strange. There's a law against shops advertising the machine games in the windows/outside yet the TV is full of those online gaming/bingo adverts.

They still do free to enter tournaments on slot machines in my local William hills to win a twenty pound voucher.

[Marsh.]

They still do free to enter tournaments on slot machines in my local William hills to win a twenty pound voucher.

They will do. They just can't advertise that outside of the shop to pull people in.

[user104658]

It is just another example of bare minimum compliance though. "We don't put posters in the window even though no one ever looks at those posters anyway, socially responsible r we innit"...

... Then giving (practically forcing) over the counter customers who have never even glanced at the machines a free go to get them hooked. :idc:

Still doing the bare minimum for industry compliance while completely unsubtly pushing the opposite on the down low. Repeatedly hammering the self destruct button to be honest. If actual social responsibility had been observed from the offset they probably wouldn't be facing as much backlash.

[Livia]

Very interesting to see your take on this, TS.

My paternal grandfather was a gambler, no one else in the family ever gambled, I wonder if it has something to do with what my grandfather lost and how horrible it was for my grandmother. It's a horrible addiction. And now it's everywhere! Bingo, slot game ads, roulette on late night telly... I'm sure most people gamble responsibly, but I understand it's affecting kids under 18 now.

[michael21]

Very interesting to see your take on this, TS.

My paternal grandfather was a gambler, no one else in the family ever gambled, I wonder if it has something to do with what my grandfather lost and how horrible it was for my grandmother. It's a horrible addiction. And now it's everywhere! Bingo, slot game ads, roulette on late night telly... I'm sure most people gamble responsibly, but I understand it's affecting kids under 18 now.

How many kids do you know over 18 :laugh:

As for kids gambling where are there getting the money from

[user104658]

How many kids do you know over 18 [emoji23]



As for kids gambling where are there getting the money fromWhen you're old and withered like me and Livia, you realise that most people under about 25 (sometimes older) are really still just kids.

[Livia]

When you're old and withered like me and Livia, you realise that most people under about 25 (sometimes older) are really still just kids.

Oi! you cheeky bugger....

[michael21]

When you're old and withered like me and Livia, you realise that most people under about 25 (sometimes older) are really still just kids.

Fair point

[user104658]

Fair point

:omgno: Are you calling Livia an old lady?

[michael21]

:omgno: Are you calling Livia an old lady?

No

[michael21]

Some more news

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ladbrokes-and-coral-hit-hard-by-gambling-crackdown-as-uk-high-street-sales-slide-065744696.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHkvTWD8dWhL9LqnppAHt996I3CO Y2vnFpeXo5ImgpFkP-RTxj0Fcfv1y84QvshQ-KLY816zLPvD6Pw_jAxrxLE1Earmf1Qk1nRJhDjCHSW_WxVRBI1 tzGnj35xu4X6xRcFMVlvWcdYQF1jTGwi3nZhxk7kU6O7h1a11i bt0Gy1D

https://www.racingpost.com/news/ladbrokes-coral-owner-posts-strong-results-despite-revenue-hit-from-fobt-cut/390705

[user104658]

Some more news

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ladbrokes-and-coral-hit-hard-by-gambling-crackdown-as-uk-high-street-sales-slide-065744696.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHkvTWD8dWhL9LqnppAHt996I3CO Y2vnFpeXo5ImgpFkP-RTxj0Fcfv1y84QvshQ-KLY816zLPvD6Pw_jAxrxLE1Earmf1Qk1nRJhDjCHSW_WxVRBI1 tzGnj35xu4X6xRcFMVlvWcdYQF1jTGwi3nZhxk7kU6O7h1a11i bt0Gy1D

https://www.racingpost.com/news/ladbrokes-coral-owner-posts-strong-results-despite-revenue-hit-from-fobt-cut/390705

Reading between the lines it's exactly as thought: the drop in FOBT revenue has been covered almost completely by the corresponding increase in Sports Betting Terminals, Over The Counter and Online. Casual players have moved to their smartphones, heavy betters have moved to sports and greyhounds. The crackdown is a complete waste of time until they make them across the board and heavily restrict slots and casino games online.

[michael21]

Reading between the lines it's exactly as thought: the drop in FOBT revenue has been covered almost completely by the corresponding increase in Sports Betting Terminals, Over The Counter and Online. Casual players have moved to their smartphones, heavy betters have moved to sports and greyhounds. The crackdown is a complete waste of time until they make them across the board and heavily restrict slots and casino games online.

Online crackdown wont happen the government make to much money from tax

[user104658]

Online crackdown wont happen the government make to much money from taxThat's what they said about FOBT's, and they were taxed higher than online.

[Vicky.]

Have not deposited on one of my sites for ages as trying to be sensible (Esp as have over a grand in my bank right now which I could blow through in hours if 'in the mood') so..oddly enough..

Dear Victoria,

We are delighted to inform you that we’ve credited you with a complimentary bonus!

This gift is only valid for a limited time period - so try out some of our fantastic online casino games now!

With over 500 games available – you are spoilt for choice!

They have stuck 80 quid in my account, to try and set off my gambling side that I find very hard to switch off once its on :S

BUT, I feel daft just leaving a free 80 quid there too, just incase.

Also I know deep down that even if I won something, the 'exclusion' excuse would come out immediately

[michael21]

Have not deposited on one of my sites for ages as trying to be sensible (Esp as have over a grand in my bank right now which I could blow through in hours if 'in the mood') so..oddly enough..



They have stuck 80 quid in my account, to try and set off my gambling side that I find very hard to switch off once its on :S

BUT, I feel daft just leaving a free 80 quid there too, just incase.

Also I know deep down that even if I won something, the 'exclusion' excuse would come out immediately

You need to block all email from gaming sites forget about any bouses as even if you win there wont pay out please don't fall for there trap Vicky :hug:

[michael21]

Vicky how are you I hope you did not use that £80 free bet

[Beso]

Get it spun Vicky. .buffalo blitz...20p spins

[michael21]

Get it spun Vicky. .buffalo blitz...20p spins

How much can you win on that

[user104658]

Get it spun Vicky. .buffalo blitz...20p spins

Encouraging someone who has a self-described gambling problem? You're on a roll this week Parm.

[michael21]

Coral just gave me a free £1 bet on live roulette I won £2 that all I did its still in my account