• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Poker Machine Pre-Commitment Law

Are you in favour of the mandatory pre-commitment plan to reduce problem gambling?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 68.0%
  • No

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • Don't know enough about it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I've not seen another thread on this, but I'd be interested in other views. I agree with the view expressed below.

Waiting for the Feature
It’s11pm at a Coffs Harbour sports club. The lone gambler is $400 down and still waiting for the feature.


This particular poker machine, The King of the Nile (pictured), is his favourite. When the coveted 15-free-games feature appears – all too infrequently – any winnings are trebled. Even better, this machine gives him a second chance if the original prize is a meager one.

Problem is he is so far down the gurgler by now that he would need a whopping payback to get anywhere near break-even. Every crisp $50 note he pumps into the slot carries with it an increasingly feverish hope of redemption. And when that has gone, he can replenish his supply of notes from the auto-teller at the door.

Reflecting between spins, he knows this session will end badly, as so many have. It is just a question of how badly....

Losing hard earned dollars is always a wrench. But losing the money on the first day of a holiday with his family waiting for him up north makes it even worse. There is no more cash after this. These are the dollars he would have spent on Movie World rollercoasters and ice creams and kayak hire. Now he has to think of excuses.

He leaves the club feeling stunned, flattened, numb. Rattling through his brain on an endless, relentless loop are desperate thoughts of how to get the money back and how he could have been so stupid and self-destructive….. again.

The gambler lies awake half the night beating himself up, mentally and physically – feeling like the lowest form of humanity, a father who spends his kids’ holiday money on pokies.

This is a true story of a compulsive gambler, one who asked to remain anonymous to spare his family But it will be familiar to anyone who has been stricken themselves or knows someone who is in the grip of what is a form of mental illness.

The gambler says his nightmare is an experience he would not wish on his worst enemy. And it’s an experience that all those rent-seekers trying to defeat a sensible and moderate attempt to slow the losses of problem gamblers need to understand.

The man above, at his most sane, might have chosen to spend no more than $50 on gambling that night. All that was needed was for someone to break the cycle and force him outside to gather his thoughts and break the breathless panic that all gamblers feel while a losing streak.

Gamblers will tell you that waiting for the feature is like waiting for the kick from heroin or cocaine. All the little wins and losses are what the gambler puts up with in the hope of the big reward – the flashing lights, the ringing bells, the happy music, the rolling numbers. When it comes, it comes in a rush. And then he wants more. And more.

The compulsion bears no relation to age or status or profession or level of intelligence of the individual. The gambler can understand perfectly well at an intellectual level that his or her chances of winning are extremely slight. But this activity is not about reason or even money. It is certainly not about having fun.

The will to self-destruction comes from self-doubt and self-hatred and depression. It is at once a form of escape from the negative feelings and a reinforcement of them. A big win brings merely relief and ammunition for the next gambling session. A big loss just confirms the emerging sense of loathing and worthlessness.

The Coffs Harbour scene, or something like it, is played out every day in the pubs and clubs of eastern Australia – a part of the world that has the highest concentration of poker machines on the planet and where it is possible to lose thousands of dollars an hour feeding the slots.

It might be a tradie blowing his pay packet in one sitting, having originally sat down with the intention of fluttering five bucks over a schooner after work. It might be a pensioner seeking escape from the loneliness of an empty flat. Or it might be a businessman sneaking out at lunchtime to try and win back the $1,000 he blew the day before.

Why do we let this continue? Because the power of the media, sports clubs, gaming companies and other vested interests are such that politicians are loathe to tackle what is a rampant social disease – one that devastates individuals, wrecks families, ruins businesses and destroys lives.

Reason tells you the sheer easy availability of high stakes, highly addictive poker machines comes at a cost too high for our society to bear. The skeptical - those who think this is really just about personal choice - should read the report from the Productivity Commission, a body known for its liberal market approach to economic issues:
About 130,000 Australians (about 1 per cent of the adult population) are estimated to have severe problems with their gambling. A further 160,000 adults are estimated to have moderate problems.
Problem gamblers comprise 15 per cent of regular (non-lottery) gamblers and account for about $3.5 billion in expenditure annually — about one-third of the gambling industries’ market.
They lose on average around $12 000 each per year, compared with just under$650 for other gamblers.
The prevalence of problem gambling is related to the degree of accessibility of gambling, particularly poker machines.
The costs include financial and emotional impacts on the gamblers and on others,with on average at least five other people affected to varying degrees.
One in 10 said they have contemplated suicide due to gambling.
Nearly half those in counselling reported losing time from work or study in thepast year due to gambling.

No-one is saying these problems will magically disappear with a pre-commitment system under which gamblers set a maximum loss before they hit the machines. But it is extremely hard to believe that such a system will not go some way to easing the pain of a problem that afflicts hundreds of thousands of people directly and hundreds of thousands more indirectly.

If we can’t address this, if we yet again bow to the rent-seekers and greed peddlers who disguise self-interest as the community interest, our political system will truly have failed. We may as well just lie down and let them do us over for eternity.

We can't afford to keep waiting for the feature.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
I have been looking for a link that describes the proposed method this thing will take. Anyone got any idea where to look?

I found some interesting facts on Andrew Wilkes site
• Amount lost in pubs and clubs in Glenorchy and Hobart on poker machines: $545,500 a week
• Amount lost on poker machines in Tasmania in 2009-10: $215.5M
• Amount you can lose on a poker machine in one hour: $1200+
• Amount lost by problem gamblers on poker machines in Australia: about $5 billion a year
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Phil Gould says it won't work and will wipe out a couple of rugby league clubs.

I was on the fence before I heard that, now I am firmly in the pro-Wilkie camp.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Does picking on Phil Gould count as playing the man or is he an exception?
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
I found some detail here: http://www.precommitment.com/about/mandatory-precommitment/
Frankly I can't see what the problem is.
What is Pre-Commitment?

There has been much recent public discussion about gaming machine pre-commitment in the media. This web page explains what is meant by ‘pre-commitment’ and provides a simple description of how it works and some of the issues.
The purpose of pre-commitment

Pre-commitment provides a restriction on gaming machine expenditure to prevent players spending more money than they originally intended. This is achieved by fixing a maximum limit on losses before the commencement of play.

Some people find it hard to stop playing gaming machines once they start, so it is thought they would benefit if they fixed the maximum amount of money they were willing to lose. Once they reached their nominated limit, they would have to stop gambling (or receive a warning that the limit had been reached).

In its recent report, the Productivity Commission recommended the introduction of a pre-commitment regime. Victoria is already introducing pre-commitment.
How would pre-commitment work?

Before playing a gaming machine, the player would have to apply for a card, similar to a loyalty card, which would be programmed with the player’s identifying information and the player would nominate their maximum daily/weekly spending limit. A player would only be allowed one card, which would be needed to play any machine in the State.

The player would insert the card into a reader on the gaming machine before commencing to play the machine. The machine would identify the player. The player would then gamble and the player’s expenditure would be recorded. Once the player reached their predetermined spending limit, the machine would stop and the player would not be able to continue gambling for the rest of that day or week. Because the same card would be needed to play any machine, the player would be prevented from playing any machine throughout the State. The next day or week, the spending limit would be reset and the player could then gamble again. (another version of pre-commitment provides a warning to the player that their limit has been reached, but allows the player to then choose to continue to gamble beyond their limit).

The player would also have access to their transaction history which would assist them in understanding the actual cost of their gambling.

The player card would need to be linked with an identification system, to prevent players using other people’s cards when theirs had reached the limit.

The Productivity Commission recommended that players be allowed to set their own spending limit with an option for them to choose unlimited gambling. Those that chose unlimited gambling would receive periodic checks that this remained their preference.

Occasional gamblers would be able to spend small amounts of money on gaming machines without registering for the pre-commitment system.
Issues
How effective would pre-commitment be?

It is difficult to predict the results of a pre-commitment scheme in helping people control their gambling expenditure. Trials in Queensland, South Australia and overseas have indicated some limited benefits.
The lack of enthusiasm for pre-commitment among gaming machine players

Australians have a dislike of being told what to do, and many gaming machine players may resent being forced to participate in a mandatory pre-commitment scheme. Participation in the voluntary pre-commitment trials in Queensland and South Australia was low, indicating a lack of enthusiasm for pre-commitment. There is a risk that problem gamblers will be the group of players most likely to opt out of pre-commitment.
The cost of pre-commitment schemes

There is a significant cost in implementing and maintaining pre-commitment schemes and the gaming industry is concerned that the administrative aspects of pre-commitment may deter gaming machine players from playing at all.
Privacy concerns

Gaming machine players will be concerned about the collection of their sensitive personal information and how that might be used by government agencies or others without their consent.
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
It's just a complete waste of money, I don't have first hand experience with someone with a gambling problem, I domhave frost hand experience with drug addicts, I'm not calling them the same, but I know a drug addict will lie, manipulate and cheat any restriction in order to achieve another high, so spending billions of dollars on what is essentially an honor system seems to be the stupidest idea on earth to me
Let Alone another form of identity that can result in the government recording your spending habits. Seems strange, all for identified "limited benefits"
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Another step along the path of the nanny state. When will the responsibility of the individual come to the fore. Nobody is forcing people to play the pokies. As with so many other issues that have met with government intervention IMO this is another area where the Government is saying the individual is unable to care for themselves and must be nannied.

In the old days they were called "one Armed Bandits" for a reason. Anybody with half a brain knows they are a means of separating you from your coin. I don't play the machines and don't gamble at all because it is my CHOICE. I do however like to go to my local Club and have a meal and a drink and look over the bowling greens and fairways. My point is from the current financials my local club (the only one in a 80kM Trip) will close. Not from directly loss of revenue but from the costs of compliance which they will just not be able to meet. No more Bowling or Golf for the oldies as they will not be able to meet the fees as they are currently heavily subsidised by the Club, Junior (non-services) members pay full price and non-members a high price to play currently. Even this may not be enough to save the club which underwent significant refurbishment recently under a business plan which allowed for full unrestricted use of their licence provisions. That business plan is now invalid and they may face a call on the loans provided under it. I don't think that my club would be an isolated case.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
I don't get the argument that they should stay because I want a place to eat. And the "I don't need to do it then no one else should" argument is a crock of shit. They are called addicts for a reason. god forbid your local club goes to the wall because some idiot doesn't spend his pay check gambling there.
 

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
Another step along the path of the nanny state. When will the responsibility of the individual come to the fore. Nobody is forcing people to play the pokies. As with so many other issues that have met with government intervention IMO this is another area where the Government is saying the individual is unable to care for themselves and must be nannied.

I dont buy this personal freedom argument, because after the gambling addict's pisses away their money, its the welfare system (ie the tax payer) who is forced to pick up the slack. The plan puts another barrier to entry between people and pokies which I dont think is a bad thing. Whilst casino's pay a higher rate to somewhat ofset the impact they have on society, clubs are taxed at NFP rates under the proviso that they fund junior sport, but the extent to which they fund it is much less than many make out.

I think it is unfortunate that some may close as a result of this legislation, but when your buisness is only viable due to gambling addicts you probably dont deserve to be in buisness.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
I don't get the argument that they should stay because I want a place to eat. And the "I don't need to do it then no one else should" argument is a crock of shit. They are called addicts for a reason. god forbid your local club goes to the wall because some idiot doesn't spend his pay check gambling there.

I don't smoke either, lets ensure that smokers can only smoke low tar cigarettes, and only one a day to minimise the harm to them. (The argument to make them go to designated areas is valid as I don't smoke and don't want to breath their second hand fumes).

In the end it is their pay cheque and if they want to piss it up the wall on the pokies it is no different to me as a young fella wasting my pay chasing women and playing with fast cars.

So many of the same "lobby" groups who decry the Pokies also decry the lack of services for youth and elderly in the community. Where will the funding come from to provide the limited services if the Clubs like mine close?

Also for the addict argument IMO other posters stating pre commitment won't work simply because the addict will migrate to other gambling forms is totally valid. With the proliferation of online betting it is easier than ever to gamble so if the legislation does pass I think we will see a migration of the addicts to their laptops and desktops which may well have a more insidious effect as they can link their bank accounts and overdrafts directly to the betting account and the losses could be exponentially greater.

Finally if there was any real evidence that this system would work in spite of all I have said I could support it. The fact that there is no evidence that it works means it could cause real harm to the community for no real net benefit to the few who are effected. A bit of lateral thought could come up with alternative schemes with a greater chance of success at less cost.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
I dont buy this personal freedom argument, because after the gambling addict's pisses away their money, its the welfare system (ie the tax payer) who is forced to pick up the slack. The plan puts another barrier to entry between people and pokies which I dont think is a bad thing. Whilst casino's pay a higher rate to somewhat ofset the impact they have on society, clubs are taxed at NFP rates under the proviso that they fund junior sport, but the extent to which they fund it is much less than many make out.

I think it is unfortunate that some may close as a result of this legislation, but when your buisness is only viable due to gambling addicts you probably dont deserve to be in buisness.

This is another aspect of the nanny state which needs reform. There is no personal responsibility in receiving public funds with no requirements. As I said potential loss of the "addicts" (which I doubt will happen anyway as they will circumvent the system somehow) are not the issue, that will cause my Club problems. It will be the loss of the casual punter and the costs of compliance.
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
I dont buy this personal freedom argument, because after the gambling addict's pisses away their money, its the welfare system (ie the tax payer) who is forced to pick up the slack. The plan puts another barrier to entry between people and pokies which I dont think is a bad thing. Whilst casino's pay a higher rate to somewhat ofset the impact they have on society, clubs are taxed at NFP rates under the proviso that they fund junior sport, but the extent to which they fund it is much less than many make out.

I think it is unfortunate that some may close as a result of this legislation, but when your buisness is only viable due to gambling addicts you probably dont deserve to be in buisness.

It's not a barrier though. It's a card, do u think an addict is going to let an automated response on a machine stop him from pouring more money in?

To invest such a large amount of money into doing something you should be sure of results, this legislation has no target or goal, it's just window shopping.

I don't like poker machines but this is stupid on every level.

I used to have a bad drug problem, I went to rehab where I was forced to confront it. If someone had handed me a card that essentially made me decide if I took drugs or not, I would still take drugs, why the he'll wouldn't I.

The first article says it all for me, the "true" story of a man gambling his kid holiday money, heapparantky knows he can't afford it but does it anyway, but with his magic card, you reckon he wasnt going to do this?
 

Rob42

John Solomon (38)
WJ, I think you're talking about a voluntary scheme, which I agree would be a waste of time. But with the mandatory scheme that's proposed, once the gambler hits their limit, they're unable to continue, at any machine in any club, for the remainder of that day or week, regardless of their desperation.

The "nanny state" argument annoys me. The government has always regulated gambling, because wherever you find gambling, you find social problems. This is just a continuation of that - probably the first change in law that hasn't favoured the clubs for the past twenty years.

This is very much a NSW-Qld problem as I understand it - clubs in other states don't rely on pokies to anywhere the same extent. Anyone from those states able to comment on how clubs survive without them?
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
WJ, I think you're talking about a voluntary scheme, which I agree would be a waste of time. But with the mandatory scheme that's proposed, once the gambler hits their limit, they're unable to continue, at any machine in any club, for the remainder of that day or week, regardless of their desperation.

The "nanny state" argument annoys me. The government has always regulated gambling, because wherever you find gambling, you find social problems. This is just a continuation of that - probably the first change in law that hasn't favoured the clubs for the past twenty years.

This is very much a NSW-Qld problem as I understand it - clubs in other states don't rely on pokies to anywhere the same extent. Anyone from those states able to comment on how clubs survive without them?

I realize it's mandatory, the problem is, if someone earns 1000 a week, they can determine there limit at 1000 thus insuring there ability to spend every dime they have. This could with the fact they are talking of having an "unlimited" option make it completely useless. I'm not anti them doing something about pokies, but thi to me is completely useless and I'm yet to see one argument that can say what it's actually going to result in.

The argument I hear is that when they identify the problem gamblers, they can limit them and then they can't gamble as much, this is the most rediculus aching to me as with what gnostic said, they will be straight to the TAB or online gambling sites.

The argument that the clubs are big bad machines trapping people is BS. It's the individuals responsibility and that alone. I'm fat, part of the reason I'm fat is I love pizza, I don't want the government to tax pizza cos I'm not able. To control myself, I need to do something about it.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Pokies were ok when all you could insert into them was some coin. Being able to purchase credits with a card or notes is over the top. I don't support pre commitment but would support a role back of pokie technology.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
If you're a fat bastard you can go to a public hospital and get help or go to your bulk billing GP and get a government sponsored health plan to help you with costs. But when your club, which apparently can't survive without some drop kicks entire pay packet, is asked to try a system that might help thousands of families across the country you scream it's not my problem. They should have self control.


That's it for me. The legislation is coming in and I'm happy it is. I will not be coming back to this thread. Even to read any reply to this post.
 

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
Ithey identify the problem gamblers, they can limit them and then they can't gamble as much, this is the most rediculus aching to me as with what gnostic said, they will be straight to the TAB or online gambling sites.
.

This is the barrier to entry that I was referring to. Pokies are a unique type of gambling that can not be compared to betting on horses, sports or even keno. Yes some might turn to online gambling, but for many of the older players, this is too foreign a concept for them, as they would have to buy and learn to use a computer.

I can see why you think this legislation wont work, and to some extent I agree, but its better than nothing. If I was writing it I would focus more on minimising the impact by setting a single round betting limit on pokies so that in order to blow 1000 dollars a player must sit at the machine for hours rather than minutes like they can now.
 
C

chief

Guest
I would have prefered if State Governments maybe just kept pokies to Casino's similar to what the WA Governments have done. However it's impossible to get rid of pokies now, they are huge revenue streams.

I hate the nanny state, and here in QLD over the last 10 years we really have gotten a nanny state. It's not pleasant. I think when people start playing pokies they accept the consequences which means addiction. I would possibly support a State Government (not Federal) funded voluntary pre-commitment or limits of say $2 dollar bets on pokies. But really this isn't the Federal Governments area to go into. Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenophon are a little over their heads here.

But I might just say, Phil Gould's comments have proven what an idiot and deadset moron he is. He doesn't actually know anything what he is on about.
 

kambah mick

Chris McKivat (8)
The precommittment is not applicable to machines which have a maximum bet of $1 per pull. Would be better to restrict all machines to a maximum bet of $1, and mandate a reduction of a certain percentage of machines per establishment per annum until there are none left. Pubs and clubs in WA exist without them and I believe management of pubs/clubs in NSW and Qld has gotten inefficient and flabby on a constant drip of cash from clubs without ever putting much back into the communities they bleed. I saw the other daythat Panthers had gross income of nearly $150m but put back into the community less than $1M. I wonder how much charities such as Salvoes and Vinnies put in each year to patch up the damage in Panthers areas.
 

Moses

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
Ahhh pokies. A big social problem, particularly in NSW, and one that I happen to know a little about.

Back in 2000-2002 I worked in one of Sydney's largest clubs. For 12 months, I was a pokie attendant 40hrs/week which involved:
- answering a pager when players called you to a machine (payouts etc)
- looking after the biggest gamblers (relationship management)
- drink service (non-alcoholic complementary)
- fixing low level machine faults (jams / empty hoppers)

I was promoted after about 12 months to the control room. In here had a 530k float and banked ~1 million AUD twice a week. The 300 machines certainly turned over some cash.

We used to have a noticeboard of photos of patrons who had sent in letters requesting to be forcibly removed if they tried to gamble in our club again. I read quite a few of these letters - what you read about problem gamblers is absolutely true, and really quite sad.

I agree the current state of pokies in NSW is a massive social problem. There are too many machines which are far too accessible. According to this 2006 report, NSW clubs operated 8.2% of the World's high intensity machines. How the fuck did this come to be?

I believe mandatory pre-commitment is a weak policy which will have some inconvenient effects at the margins but make no difference to problem gamblers.

So, what should we be doing? Here's some ideas that might actually work:
- legislate the maximum a machine can turnover per hour
- $1 max bet on all machines
- drastically reduce the availability of pokies in this state
- get them out of pubs
- have machines display data on their screens about the real world financials of that individual machine. eg "For each $1 deposited in this machine, 89.6c has been returned to the player."
- look at ways to limit punters to a single machine (no-one seems to mention the punters who play multiple machines simultaneously by wedging a plastic card in the play 20 lines button, then sitting back and watching 2 or 3 machines.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top