Some of the counter arguments on here are contradictory. For example, if the mandatory pre-commitment won't work, why would it effect clubs financially? And if it works, great. As someone said above, a tiny percentage goes back to the local community so that isn't a counter argument. Gnostic I know you love your cheap meal and beer, but would you feel the same way if the poor wretches who are, in effect, paying for that were giving you the money directly? Probably not I suspect. The only argument above which holds any weight is that people will find other means to gamble which are less regulated and where the government doesn't harvest any tax from the revenue. I agree that is potentially a negative outcome and something which should be looked at. As for the nanny state, that isn't as silly as it sounds. We do need to be careful with personal freedoms. In this case, on balance, I'm in favour of a restriction of the right to play the pokies in clubs and pubs. I agree with those who suggest pokies should be restricted to casinos but we're a fair way away from getting to that point. Phil Gould is a one dimensional thinker so its no surprise he's formed the only view his brain could formulate. Ray Warren, on the other hand, is a reformed problem gambler and has previously campaigned about it. The surrender of his principles was more surprising and disappointing.