bennymacca wrote:bulldogproud wrote:bennymacca wrote:its on his website that he wants to reduce maximum bets to $1 and $120 an hour.
Targeted gambling reform is required. We have the world’s highest per capita gambling losses and level of problem gambling. Our governments are totally out-of-touch with the overwhelming community desire to rein in the damage caused.
Examples of what needs to be done:
With pokies being the biggest cause of problem gambling, the immediate implementation of the Productivity Commission’s recommendation for $1 maximum bets per spin and $120 in hourly losses (compared to $10 per spin and $1200 an hour) is required
Challenge the major parties to conduct a referendum on implementing $1 maximum bet reforms.
Ensure the Productivity Commission regularly updates its gambling research
End micro-betting on sports events, which can lead to corruption and match fixing in sports
Remove ATMs from venues with poker machines
Reinstate ban on EFTPOS access in SA poker machine rooms
Overhaul outdated online gambling laws, to take into account the impact of emerging technologies
End sports betting ads during games
The Commonwealth needs to develop an approach to wean state governments off their $5billion a year of gambling taxes
Those measures will only do a little though to target the addicts though. They will sit at a machine for hour after hour after hour. Limiting losses to $120 an hour will still see them go through many hundreds of dollars a session.
Also, most addicts will play 50 lines on a 1 cent machine at a time (thus, already being below the $1 bet level).
Removing ATMs will just mean that the addict will drive his car from one pub to the next, visiting an ATM along the way. Similarly, the EFTPOS proposal won't do much at all to addicts either.
The best solution, one which Nick won't listen to as he doesn't want to see govt revenue from pokie machines drop by much is to get rid of the 'Free Games' Feature and limit the lines to a maximum of 5. This will have the most impact on those who play machines for hour after hour after hour. These are the ones with the mental health issues, the ones who really need the help.
Cheers,
Im not arguing that this method may also work - just with your original assertion that he never really wanted to ban or reduce pokies, which is clearly not true. Whether or not he agreed with your method for doing so is a different argument
Nick has said that his number one reason for going into politics was to assist 'problem gamblers'. Where I have a problem with Nick is that he has never ever suggested any policy that will really help these 'problem gamblers' or 'addicts' significantly.
The true 'problem gambler' is not a person who will bet $5 on one roll. Rather, they will play maximum lines on a lower-value machine (1c or 2c). Their goal for playing the machines is not so much to win money (as, deep down, addicts know that that is not going to happen), but to enjoy the 'psychological or sensory benefits' that come from the machine (the so-called bells and whistles). Will Nick's proposals have much impact on these? Let's have a look:
1. Reducing the amount that can be wagered on a single bet to $1. Impact: Nil
Pretty much all problem gamblers already wager under that amount. They will play the maximum amount of lines (commonly 50 on a lower value machine). This would equate to either 50c a wager or $1.00 a wager.
2. Removing ATMs from Pokie premises. Impact: At best, very limited.
A 'problem gambler' can walk into a pokie room with, say, $300 and still blow the lot without needing an ATM. This amount would give them quite a few hours play on low-value machines. The problem is that they will do this three or four times a week. Four times a week still equates to a loss of $62,400 a year!!
Also, if they want to lose more, they can easily go to an ATM outside the venue (pretty much one on every street corner nowadays).
3. Banning EFTPOS facilities: Same as (2), very limited impact.
4. Reducing the amount that can be lost per hour to $120. Impact: Marginal at best
Losing $120 an hour can still equate to the $300 a night very easily. Additionally, on the low-value machine, it is VERY hard to lose $120 an hour. Remember, this is LOSSES per hour, not wagers per hour.
5. Reducing the number of pokies per venue. Impact: Very little
Pokie machine venues are rarely completely full. Additionally, if one is, just travel 1km to the next venue. The size of reduction Nick is interested in would have very little impact.
Now, what does motivate 'problem gamblers'? It is a bit like 'Pavlov's Dog'. The constant reinforcement of what pokie machine players see as small 'wins' (which are actually still losses), accompanied by the music and images that tell them they are a winner act as 'stimuli' just like the bell that motivated Pavlov's dog. They will be motivated by these occurrences and their key aim is to spin up the 'free games' or 'feature'.
How do we reduce the 'Pavlov's Dog' effect? Reduce the stimuli.
Firstly, get rid of the major stimuli that keeps pokie players at the machine hour after hour: the 'free games' or 'feature'.
Secondly, greatly reduce the 'constant positive reinforcement stimuli' of the 'wins'. It goes without saying that if you reduce the number of lines from 50 down to 5 that the stimuli will only occur one-tenth as often. This lack of stimuli will 'bore' the players, taking their motivation away.
Nick has never really seemed to be interested in reducing the attraction for 'problem gamblers' and, yet, this was what he stated was his motivation for going into parliament. He, in fact, told me that my proposed measures would have 'TOO STRONG' an impact on problem gamblers and reduce hotel revenue and government taxation. He does not want to see this happen. Surely, though, this goes 100% against his stated reason for being in politics??? Is he really wanting to reduce 'problem gambling' or is he just using the issue to further his own cause?
I will let you be the judge of that.
Cheers
