bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

[Bassmansam]

Uh ooh sky bet report shows i have deposited 2300 in my account and have won 1560 in the last twelve months. I don’t have a car, go to the pub and eat out 1-2 times a month so i beleive it is justifiable. I like a weekly bet on the football, why should it be banned because some people don’t spend within their means?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

why should it be banned

It isn't, and parliament isn't proposing a ban.

 

[placeholder]

I'm getting quite tired of the fact that as an individual I am being increasingly dictated to as a result of other individuals inability to act as responsible adults. I'm tired of them being divorced from said responsibility by having law and regulation do it for them.

I enjoyed the odd full sugar Lucozade - that has been taken away to save fat people from themselves
I enjoyed taking advantage of cheap deals of alcohol - that has been removed (Im in Scotland) to save alcoholics from themselves
I have a job and work long hours so do my weekly shop at 6.30 in the morning - I cant buy a bottle of wine for the weekend or a few beers then because of the possibility I may drink it straight away.
Now its gambling being targeted....

I feel sorry for people with addiction issues whatever they may be and I believe they should be able to get help but at the end of the day people need to have some level of personal responsibility for being an adult!

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I feel sorry for people with addiction issues whatever they may be and I believe they should be able to get help but at the end of the day people need to have some level of personal responsibility for being an adult!

I'm starting to find it fascinating that people like yourself are completely missing the point with this.

If a known alcoholic tried to quit booze, and the landlord of the pub contacted him to say "hey, I haven't seen you for a while is everything ok with you? I've attached complimentary tickets to our beer festival at the weekend, and the first round is on us!"

Would that be acceptable behaviour? Why should gaming companies have unrestricted access to their addicts? Why should they have unrestricted access to create a new generation of addicts?

 

[placeholder]

I'm starting to find it fascinating that people like yourself are completely missing the point with this.

If a known alcoholic tried to quit booze, and the landlord of the pub contacted him to say "hey, I haven't seen you for a while is everything ok with you? I've attached complimentary tickets to our beer festival at the weekend, and the first round is on us!"

Would that be acceptable behaviour? Why should gaming companies have unrestricted access to their addicts? Why should they have unrestricted access to create a new generation of addicts?

If you can provide regulation without it impacting on those who don't suffer with addition then I don't have any issues with that but when the addict is causing the change across the board to the detriment of all then I have a problem with it - that was my general comment across the various areas I mentioned.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

when the addict is causing the change across the board to the detriment of all then I have a problem with it

Are you referring to a change in particular that has happened, or are you speaking in general? In any case, I agree with your sentiment there.

BTW, I've decided to do a little experiment. The target will be to sign up and place a bet on a one off event and at the same time take advantage of any special offers available like a free bet or whatever. I'd like to see the marketing techniques first hand - this thread has really captured my interest for some reason.

 

[Angilion]

So you are claiming there is no manufactured fruit machines in the UK that have psuedo gambles?

You either didn't read my post before replying to it or you are lying, since your claim about my post explicitly contradicts my post.

Which is it?

For the time being, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are deliberately ignorant rather than lying about me in an attempt to make me look bad.

EDIT: I notice that you didn't use the reply function, so there isn't a clickable link back to what I actually wrote. Again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did so for some reason other than deliberately hiding what I wrote because you know it's completely different to what you're claiming I wrote. I'm being very nice to you about this.

Here's a link to what I actually wrote:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32366562/

 

[dowie]

Both the methods you refer to are used in the UK and a combination of both is also used. Some machines are utterly random on every spin and every gamble. Some machines are random on every spin but vary the odds on gambles. Some machines are only partially random and will vary the chances of winning depending on previous wins on both spins and gambles. Some machines will do that on spins but are wholly random on gambles. You can even have all of those behaviours on the same machine because many machines have different games on them and the method can vary from game to game. What's also true in the UK is that it's legally required to state on the game whether or not it's completely random.

What do you mean when referring to "gambles" as distinct from "spins" here?

 

[Angilion]

What do you mean when referring to "gambles" as distinct from "spins" here?

In general use, "spins" are rotations of the reels (or, far more commonly nowadays, simulations of rotations of simulated reels) that might or might not result in a winning combination and "gambles" are a chance of increasing, decreasing or losing a win. Both are a gamble, but they're generally referred to differently.

I'll use a typical example as an illustration:

I press the start button. That's the part that would be called a spin. The reels spin and come up with a combination that pays £10. A screen appears offering me to option to collect the £10 or to gamble that win in some manner. That's the part that would be called a gamble.

It's sort of like an accumulator on other forms of gambling.

 

[chrcoluk]

Uh ooh sky bet report shows i have deposited 2300 in my account and have won 1560 in the last twelve months. I don’t have a car, go to the pub and eat out 1-2 times a month so i beleive it is justifiable. I like a weekly bet on the football, why should it be banned because some people don’t spend within their means?

I dont agree with banning betting, I just feel the betting companies need to operate in a more honest manner.

We know they have a house advantage thats absolutely fine, but there should be no pseudo gamble systems, no banning of people who have a good run, and age checks are done when depositing instead of when withdrawing.

 

[chrcoluk]

You either didn't read my post before replying to it or you are lying, since your claim about my post explicitly contradicts my post.

Which is it?

For the time being, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are deliberately ignorant rather than lying about me in an attempt to make me look bad.

EDIT: I notice that you didn't use the reply function, so there isn't a clickable link back to what I actually wrote. Again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did so for some reason other than deliberately hiding what I wrote because you know it's completely different to what you're claiming I wrote. I'm being very nice to you about this.

Here's a link to what I actually wrote:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32366562/

hit quote this time, either you edited the post after I read it, or I am guilty of not reading the entire post.

I acknowledge there is no laws broken, I never said they were breaking the law, the problem is misleading players.

If a machine decides its not going to let you gamble past £4 on the feature, and it shows you a option of gambling, its basically a press to lose button, its not a gamble, so yes they payout the same on a overall basis, but the way they achieve that is different.

If you want an example its a bit like a bookie offering you a bet but hiding the odds until after you play, and then odds are revealed as something like this.

result a 1/0 result b 1/0, so either result a or result b loses.

It is interesting that you stated some players will prefer the larger prizes, yes these may tend to be addicts, fuelling the addicts to get their money which was the whole point of why I made my post to begin with.

I feel with fruit machines the stakes should be really low, probably max 2p per play, every gamble is a true gamble, and the house advantage is simply the odds been in favour of losing over a long period of time, but no forced losses or wins. Unless of course you have the "no lose" feature bonus. Take away note slots as well.

 

[Angilion]

hit quote this time, either you edited the post after I read it, or I am guilty of not reading the entire post.

I think you didn't read any of my post, since I repeatedly said the opposite of what you claimed I said.

As for editing, that's logged. I can't remember if I edited the post at all after posting it, but I wouldn't have changed the meaning of anything if I did. I'm happy to have a mod look at the logs to see what edits I made, when I made them and when you "replied" to the post.

I acknowledge there is no laws broken, I never said they were breaking the law, the problem is misleading players.

I didn't say you said laws were being broken, either. I mentioned a couple of laws in passing because they're relevant to my point, namely your claim that all British fruit machines are non-random is wrong. If it was right, there wouldn't be any need for different labelling.

Although come to think of it, now I will say that you're effectively saying that British fruit machine manufacturers (and foreign manufacturers selling fruit machines here) are breaking the law. You might not be aware that you're doing so, since you don't know enough about AWPs in the UK and the UK laws about them, but if what you said was true then many manufacturers and software developers would be breaking the law. All category B3 games, for example, since they're either not labelled as being non-random or are explicitly labelled as being wholly random (because they are). Category C games might be semi-random (some are, some aren't), but if they are then they need to be labelled as such. You'd see a message along the lines of "This game is compensated and may sometimes offer the player a choice in which there is little or no chance of success" (for non-random gambles) or "This game is compensated and the outcome of a game may be affected by previous games. Not all winning combinations are available on every spin" (for non-random spins). I can't say for certain for Cat D off the top of my head - the rules for those are quite different and less strict and I rarely deal with them.

Are you aware of the categorisation of AWPs in the UK and the rules governing each category? Are you familiar with the term "AWP"? If the answer to either or both questions is "no", you should further consider the possibility that you don't know as much about them as you think you do.

 

[chrcoluk]

They not breaking the law, this was already brought up to the gambling commission by players and it was decided no laws have been broken as well as a unwillingness to change the law. So no I am not saying they breaking the law.

 

[Angilion]

They not breaking the law, this was already brought up to the gambling commission by players and it was decided no laws have been broken as well as a unwillingness to change the law. So no I am not saying they breaking the law.

You said that British "fruit machines" are non-random.

Many British AWPs explicitly state that they are completely random (because they are).

It is illegal to state that an AWP is completely random when it is not.

So yes, you are saying that they are breaking the law. You don't realise that you're doing so because you are drawing conclusions from incorrect premises rather than from accurate knowledge of the industry.

As an aside, many British AWPs have seperate specialised RNG hardware specifically to ensure that the random really is utterly random.

 

[dowie]

I think you're either confusing each other or both inadvertently responding with straw man arguments.

I think chrcoluk is referring to the machines/games you've identified as being "category C games".

You've talked about non-random gambles and he's talking about there being possible non-random situations with those machines where the player is offered a choice they have no chance of winning -it seems like you're likely referring to the same thing.

IMHO the very existence of those machines is pretty silly (I'm not really sure what the motivation is for them? Some desire for % returns for the owners/operators to be guaranteed? Therefore easier to have marketed them in the first place or something?), so long as the edge is there then frankly specific odds for certain events ought to be the way to go.

 

[Angilion]

I think you're either confusing each other or both inadvertently responding with straw man arguments.

I think chrcoluk is referring to the machines/games you've identified as being "category C games".

You've talked about non-random gambles and he's talking about there being possible non-random situations with those machines where the player is offered a choice they have no chance of winning -it seems like you're likely referring to the same thing.

The difference is that he is saying that British "fruit machines" are non-random and have a lumpy payout structure. That is not true. Some are. Some aren't. As far as I'm aware, all Cat B3 games are wholly random. Some Cat C games are partially non-random (and are explicitly labelled as such - there's no deception). Payout structures vary a great deal from game to game in the UK, so his statement about that is wrong too.

IMHO the very existence of those machines is pretty silly (I'm not really sure what the motivation is for them? Some desire for % returns for the owners/operators to be guaranteed? Therefore easier to have marketed them in the first place or something?), so long as the edge is there then frankly specific odds for certain events ought to be the way to go.

% returns are always guaranteed (over a large enough VTP) unless the software is bugged. That's extremely rare because of the extensive testing done - I know of only 1 confirmed case in almost 30 years. That game was mistakenly set to pay 110% instead of 90%. Ooops! They'd tested heavily to ensure it didn't underpay (that would be an enormous legal problem), but obviously hadn't tested well enough for overpaying. Much money was lost by businesses running that game.

How the %age is guaranteed doesn't really matter, which is my guess as to why partially non-random AWP games exist. Why bother going through a whole slew of development, testing and validation on completely new software when there's no reason to do so? That's my guess for the reason.


VTP = Value of Total Plays. The total amount staked. I initially wrote "number of spins" to simplify things, but that would have been wrong except on fixed stake machines. The percentage is calculated on money staked, not number of spins, e.g. 1 £1 spin counts the same for %age payout purposes as 10 10p spins.

 

[dowie]

I think it is silly, he’s likely just means those that are.

Yes I’m aware “in the long run”.

I’m more curious as to why the cat c machines exist?

 

[Johno please?]

I'm getting quite tired of the fact that as an individual I am being increasingly dictated to as a result of other individuals inability to act as responsible adults. I'm tired of them being divorced from said responsibility by having law and regulation do it for them.

I enjoyed the odd full sugar Lucozade - that has been taken away to save fat people from themselves
I enjoyed taking advantage of cheap deals of alcohol - that has been removed (Im in Scotland) to save alcoholics from themselves
I have a job and work long hours so do my weekly shop at 6.30 in the morning - I cant buy a bottle of wine for the weekend or a few beers then because of the possibility I may drink it straight away.
Now its gambling being targeted....

I feel sorry for people with addiction issues whatever they may be and I believe they should be able to get help but at the end of the day people need to have some level of personal responsibility for being an adult!

Couldnt agree more.

Thats because we live in the land of tyranny, ( ) can you see America trying to pull this crap, "sorry sir according to the state that pizza has too many calories in it so its been removed from sale"

 

[Dirk Diggler]

can you see America trying to pull this crap, "sorry sir according to the state that pizza has too many calories in it so its been removed from sale"

What relevance does that point have to the discussion?

 

[robfosters]

Are you referring to a change in particular that has happened, or are you speaking in general? In any case, I agree with your sentiment there.

BTW, I've decided to do a little experiment. The target will be to sign up and place a bet on a one off event and at the same time take advantage of any special offers available like a free bet or whatever. I'd like to see the marketing techniques first hand - this thread has really captured my interest for some reason.

You should look at matched betting and guarantee yourself a few quid at the same time.