1. 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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cutter, Oct 30, 2011.

?

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

Poll closed Nov 6, 2011.
Yes 17 vote(s) 68.0%
No 8 vote(s) 32.0%
Don't know enough about it. 0 vote(s) 0.0%
  1. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    I've not seen another thread on this, but I'd be interested in other views. I agree with the view expressed below.

  2. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    8,740
    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
  3. barbarian Nick Farr-Jones (63)

    Likes Received:
    9,601
    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.
  4. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    8,740
    Does picking on Phil Gould count as playing the man or is he an exception?
  5. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    8,740
    I found some detail here: http://www.precommitment.com/about/mandatory-precommitment/
    Frankly I can't see what the problem is.
  6. waratahjesus Greg Davis (50)

    Likes Received:
    2,029
    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 likes this.
  7. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,117
    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.
    Ruggo and waratahjesus like this.
  8. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    8,740
    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.
    Cutter likes this.
  9. Bowside Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    1,829
    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.
  10. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,117
    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.
  11. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,117
    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.
  12. waratahjesus Greg Davis (50)

    Likes Received:
    2,029
    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?
  13. Rob42 Ron Walden (29)

    Likes Received:
    552
    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?
  14. waratahjesus Greg Davis (50)

    Likes Received:
    2,029
    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.
  15. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,694
    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.
  16. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    8,740
    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.
  17. Bowside Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    1,829
    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.
  18. chief John Solomon (38)

    Likes Received:
    193
    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.
  19. kambah mick Chris McKivat (8)

    Likes Received:
    70
    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.
  20. Moses Simon Poidevin (60)

    Likes Received:
    1,567
    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.)

Share This Page