Roulette Machines In Betting Shops

[gollob]

On Anglia TV tonight an 70 year old man said he has lost his garage business ,his home and his marriage partner and has been living in a shed. He was not a gambler but won £30 the first time he played, and then got hooked The government are now debating that the maximum bet on then should be reduced for £100 down to £50, £10 or even £2.00. They should be banned completely. Is there anybody in favour of them?

[EDDIE51]

^ I'm on a basic pension, I could loose an entire weeks income on one spin of a betting shop terminal machine.

[Jackdaw33]

I have lost count of the number of club secretaries and treasurers, who had the keys to the bandit, brought to book because of helping themselves through the back door. For some it was just a money box which provided them with their pocket money.

[EDDIE51]

^ We had that problem as well ,the club treasurer had money problems and was facing eviction. He was caught helping himself to the fruit machine takings. We did not tell the police, just sacked him and changed the locks.

[mikey4444]

I can recall all the problems of these one-armed bandits being brought up, when the law was being changed. Its to my lasting shame, that it was a Labour Government that changed to law of these gaming machines.

[Jahulaye]

Eddie I know, you can literally lose thousands in an hour

[mikey4444]

The reason that these daft machines are there, is because they make huge sums of money for the owners of the bookies, not because they provide hours of "enjoyment" for consumers. They are just a cynical way of getting money out of people who lack the judgement needed to avoid them.

[tonyav]

They are just a cynical way of getting money out of people who lack the judgement needed to avoid them.

But that's what betting shops are for, mikey.

[Jackdaw33]

It was also a Labour government who changed the licensing laws so you can now get legless 24/7. A far cry from the non-conformist Labour tradition I grew up with.

[Everhelpful]

"Barmaid" has got it absolutely spot-on,brilliantly put.

[mikey4444]

Yes Tony, I am aware of that. But these machines allow people to lose vast sums of money, in a very short period of time, which was much more difficult when it was betting on the horses that betting shops were designed.

In some areas, that I have to work in, its only Bookies that are left.....

[tonyav]

But these machines allow people to lose vast sums of money, in a very short period of time,


I know, mikey. But that is the punters choice, they don't have to play them.

[mikey4444]

Tony....yes, you are right. But people who have a gambling problem, now have a legal ability to fuel their obsession. I still think that these machines have no place on the High Street.

[tonyav]

I still think that these machines have no place on the High Street.

Yes mikey I fully understand that, I somehow suspect that these machines have been and are the savior to many a bookies shop though.

[New Judge]

Hymie’s mathematical model is near enough correct. Assuming these machines follow the European roulette model (with just zero and not zero and double zero as the US game has) then the House Advantage or “edge” is 2.7%. This edge is achieved because the odds paid for any single number is 35-1 (when in fact the true probability of any one number being spun is 36-1). A similar edge exists on the “even money” bets (payout is evens when the probability is 18/37). All the other group bets show a similar edge. This means that over a period, provided the spin is not fixed in any way, it should pay out £97.30 for every £100 staked. Staking £1 on single numbers on 111 spins should see three wins (111/37). This would see a return (including stakes) of £108. The £3 loss is the casino’s edge (3/111 = 2.7%).

But life ain’t like that as Woofgang has touched on. An individual punter would be quite fortunate to gain three wins in 111 spins. (Some might achieve three or more, but most would achieve less than three). So it is not quite so straightforward to suggest that for every £100 staked the punter should expect to lose only £2.30. If he placed £1,000 in bets (at the same value each) he might get closer to the average loss, £10,000 closer still and so on. To use a simple analogy imagine tossing a coin. On average you should win 50% of the time. But you might lose three times in a row (which nobody would deem unusual). But you’d be very unlucky to lose ten times in a row and even unluckier still to lose 100 times in a row.

[Hymie]

Although my quoted odds might be slightly in error – the main point being that they supposedly have around a 97% pay-out.

Many, many stories are reported in the press where punters have lost many thousands on these machines – I’ve never read one in which a punter won many thousands. Although anecdotal, this suggests to me that the actual odds are nowhere near 97%.

It would be interesting to me if some organisation investigated the actual pay-out from a machine, or perhaps an insider spilled the beans on the software code used to control the pay outs. After all, the machine knows the numbers on which money has been staked, before ‘randomly’ selecting the winning number.

[New Judge]

Yes there's certainly greater scope to fix an electronic machine than there is to do so with a roulette wheel and as you say the machine "knows" which numbers have been selected.

But if a punter is placing £100 bets on single numbers (or even on the 18-1 or 12-1 chances) he could quickly accumulate large losses before achieving a win. I've no idea how these machines work and don't know whether they are "true" or not. I've done quite a bit of study on roulette and looked into some of the supposed "systems" which some say could maximise winnings (in fact most of them simply minimise their inevitable losses). I can easily see how large losses could accumulate even on a true roulette wheel and I think it's a bit presumptuous to accuse the owners of rigging them because, quite simply, they don't need to.

[Hymie]

Whilst I would agree that it is possible to loose significant amounts of money on a non fixed roulette game – it would actually be quite easy to confirm the randomness by statistical analysis.

There are a number is well known techniques whereby a sequence of numbers can be tested for randomness.

The tests do not prove definitively that a sequence is not random – but give a probability figure in relation to the randomness.

If my suspions are correct, in that the machines take into consideration placed bets, such non-randomness would easily be detected by statistical analysis.

[beso]

The machine is in a betting shop. "He was not a gambler".

How did he come to put money in the machine?

[jennyjoan]

No - if I was able to achieve it and though this is impossible - I would ban gambling altogether.

But from learning from experience - Gambling is extremely in the "blood" - probably inherited too. Worse curse of the lot, Alcohol, Drugs - a person could not drink or drug say £1,000 in seconds but you can lose everything you possess in the same time. Horrendous!!!

[Bathsheba]

Have been told that wherever bookies are, pawnshop will be nearby.

Baths
x x x