Pokies the Moral Backbone of the Eastern States of Australia

[Tysonboss1]

In NSW the clubs are just great...when i haven't lived in NSW ive really missed the clubs, cheap food, free wifi, free buses, free/cheap entertainment free or cheap as, this and that....ya just don't get that anywhere else, and the pokies pay for that.

.

It's true, Every time we visit the inlaws on the central coast we end up at one of the many great little clubs for a meal and some cheap beers.

On topic though, One of the biggest clubs "Mingara" has loads and loads of pokies that are always busy, They help fund lots of local sports teams and also bail a few smaller clubs that tend to run losses. I can see how changes to the pokies law's will upset the apple cart for a while.

Hopefully the best clubs will survive, They are a good social outlet for the older crowd who are a bit tight on the budget,

 

[LostMyShirt]

I'm just glad that I'm a TAB punter so no regulation for me

I like your management system Tech/a. It is very simple and locks in profits.

 

[Tysonboss1]

There is no maximum as far as I know. The problem is social pokie players don't want to register on a government database so they will opt out.

True, I don't personally use the poker machines, But the majority of my friends that do usually do it on a spur of the moment, they just put in a lazy $5 or $10 on the way to the bar, I can't see them going and registering.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Only follow the Melbourne Cup Take out boxed trifectas around $500 (2 yrs ago won $7800 so that doesnt owe me anything --YET).
And am in a syndicate for lotto!

Gee whiz tech/a, I hope your trading profits become significant. The big lotto win could be a long way off and you might be still here in 10 years time..

 

[Tysonboss1]

I'm just glad that I'm a TAB punter
.

So they are the ones that got your shirt, Bastards

 

[Wysiwyg]

So they are the ones that got your shirt, Bastards

Buy TTS!

 

[derty]

Pokies and Lotto are taxation devises for the stupid and vulnerable.

Sure some of the profits the pokies generate gets redistributed back into the community, but what percentage? Overall it will be a significant net loss to the community. Money that would otherwise end up in the retail and other sectors rather than siphoned into the pockets of a few. Granted some would find ways to gamble regardless, however it is the easy accessibility of the pokies that makes them such a successful gambling hook.

In towns/cities that have populations that can sustain a level of cultural diversification the obvious effect of pokies is limited. However in smaller centres the cheap pokie subsidised food and alcohol that clubs provide undercut and pushout restaurants and pubs. Mt Isa is a great example of this. WA does not have pokies in clubs and pubs and it seems to be doing fine without them.

I don't really understand why people are so up in arms at the pre-commitment legislation. If 40% or more of revenue raised by pokies is from problem gamblers then surely a method that can keep a portion of this in some of these problem gamblers pockets is worth a shot?

Have a read of some of the comments posted here: http://www.problemgambling.vic.gov.au/main/taking-control/playing-pokies

 

[Julia]

People wanting to play pokies should be required to provide documents outlining their past successes, R:R, expectancy, Sharpe ratio and maximum draw down.

Do you ever write something online and think: why did I write that.... it's not even funny?

Well, I thought it was funny, GB.

 

[tech/a]

Gee whiz tech/a, I hope your trading profits become significant. The big lotto win could be a long way off and you might be still here in 10 years time..

Thanks for your concern.
Thank god I have a bit of luck with Chook Raffles.

 

[IFocus]

Great article by Tim Costello

No discussion about cheep meals and beers

Abbott turns his back on problem gamblers

John Howard admitted in 1999 that he was ashamed of pokies. This week Tony Abbott ignored his mentor's view and more than a decade of research into the reforms needed to address problem gambling.

The current debate around pokies reform is not about the choice to have a punt. It's about protecting families from the pain that comes with the addiction to poker machines.

After a decade of research and a comprehensive report by the Productivity Commission, we know the answers to address why 40 per cent of all profits come from problem gambling. We don't need another political debate. We just need to put those most vulnerable in our society first, and deliver poker machine reform because it affects all of us. After illicit drugs, pokies are the second greatest contributor to crime.

Some 86 per cent of problem gambling in Australia is from pokies.

Why?

Because Australia has the highest loss machines in the world

- it is possible to lose over $1,200 an hour on modern machines.

What about those myths

In Western Australia, the absence of pokies has not resulted in an increase in online gambling. In fact, WA has mainland Australia's highest recreation and sports participation rates.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3602514.html

 

[JTLP]

Great article by Tim Costello

No discussion about cheep meals and beers

Abbott turns his back on problem gamblers












What about those myths



http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3602514.html

As soon as I read "Tim Costello" I tuned out. That trumpet blowing, egotistical, high and mighty goose doesn't deserve a minute of my time.

 

[Macquack]

As soon as I read "Tim Costello" I tuned out. That trumpet blowing, egotistical, high and mighty goose doesn't deserve a minute of my time.

I think you are confusing Tim Costello with his brother Peter Costello, in which case your comments are correct.

 

[JTLP]

I think you are confusing Tim Costello with his brother Peter Costello, in which case your comments are correct.

Nope - know exactly who I am talking about - World Vision etc etc.

I rate Peter Costello (so do 99% of the population). If he was in power now Australia would be a lot "luckier"

 

[IFocus]

As soon as I read "Tim Costello" I tuned out. That trumpet blowing, egotistical, high and mighty goose doesn't deserve a minute of my time.

Not sure where you are coming from given Tim Costello has spent a live time being an advocate for the poor, starving and disadvantaged often against the establishment.

 

[IFocus]

I rate Peter Costello (so do 99% of the population). If he was in power now Australia would be a lot "luckier"

Pete didn't have the backing of the faceless men in the Liberal Party like Abbott hence he couldn't roll Howard i.e. the party insiders didn't rate him highly.

Keating summed Howard and Costello correctly as a couple of mugs who got lucky with a high growth economy resulting from world events.

If you compare Australia's prosperity at the time with other OECD countries you will see the same economic growth no matter which side of the political spectrum was running the show.

 

[Julia]

Great article by Tim Costello
Abbott turns his back on problem gamblers

How silly to describe Abbott's stand like this.
Can you provide proof that mandatory limits will eliminate problem gambling?
No one else has. Further, the proponents of this policy refuse to undertake a trial of the suggested policy.

Why? If they are so confident it will work, they have nothing to fear from demonstrating it before gazillions are spent in changing the machines.

What Tony Abbott actually said is that such a policy will not fix problem gambling.
I agree. I spent some considerable time facilitating a group of pokie addicts and as a result have a considerable insight into what motivates them and what doesn't.
Absolutely no indication that any mandatory commitment would do anything for them except make them laugh.

If you can criticise Tony Abbott's suggestion that individual gamblers would much more benefit from individual counselling in order to help them understand where the motivation to gamble came from and thence how to cope with it from a point of view of knowledge and experience, by all means do this.
But I'm pretty sure you won't be able to, so maybe just hold off on the mindless criticism.

The proposed policy exists purely because one Andrew Wilkie demanded it as a condition of allowing Gillard to govern. Absolutely not because of any conviction on Gillard's part on the issue, as is entirely obvious every time she talks about it.

Nope - know exactly who I am talking about - World Vision etc etc.

I rate Peter Costello (so do 99% of the population). If he was in power now Australia would be a lot "luckier"

Couldn't agree more.

Not sure where you are coming from given Tim Costello has spent a live time being an advocate for the poor, starving and disadvantaged often against the establishment.

Well, whoop de do. I'm all for people who care about the disadvantaged, but Tim Costello lacks the capacity to apply an objective view about most of what he goes on about. Couldn't be more different from his brother.

 

[lindsayf]

quoting Julia

"If you can criticise Tony Abbott's suggestion that individual gamblers would much more benefit from individual counselling in order to help them understand where the motivation to gamble came from and thence how to cope with it from a point of view of knowledge and experience, by all means do this.
But I'm pretty sure you won't be able to, so maybe just hold off on the mindless criticism."

I think this can be challenged on a couple of fronts. Problem Gamblers are well known for their low presentation rates at counselling services. A lot of existing services are far from capacity - but this is not a good measure of the extent of the problem to say the least. Counselling is effective but only for those who present and who are seriously wanting change.

Knowing this ( which Abbott would) - To then argue for more counselling services etc etc is the most conservative position to take and is basically saying 'let us accept the status quo'. This is of course what the club lobby wants and anyone else who has vested interests in the revenue generated by problem gamblers.

I dont think anyone expects MPC to 'eliminate' problem gambling - thats an absurd idea - but if it reduces the harm done to a percentage of PG's and their families then it might be part of a range of steps that could be taken if the status quo is to be challenged - and if the clubs etc are one day wanting to be able to say 'we did something meaningful to address problem gambling and to reduce our dependence on the revenue generated by PG's'

I am not pulling this out of my ****...I have worked in the industry.

Lindsay

 

[IFocus]

Staying with the big picture Pokies the Moral Backbone of having a cheap meal and beer Barrie Cassidy asks the obvious

Whoever wins the argument, at least some fundamental questions are now being asked around the issue – the most relevant – how is it that some licensed clubs and even entire sports are apparently viable only off the back of problem gamblers? How did it come to that in this country, and can anything be done to reduce that dependency?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-28/cassidy-feeling-the-heat-on-pokies-reform/3604504

 

[Julia]

I think this can be challenged on a couple of fronts. Problem Gamblers are well known for their low presentation rates at counselling services. A lot of existing services are far from capacity - but this is not a good measure of the extent of the problem to say the least. Counselling is effective but only for those who present and who are seriously wanting change.

Certainly. This applies to anyone wanting to change any behaviour.
And the same would apply to setting mandatory commitment limits on the same principle.

Knowing this ( which Abbott would) - To then argue for more counselling services etc etc is the most conservative position to take and is basically saying 'let us accept the status quo'. This is of course what the club lobby wants and anyone else who has vested interests in the revenue generated by problem gamblers.

Agreed. Liberals believe in people taking responsibility for themselves, rather than the nanny state.

I dont think anyone expects MPC to 'eliminate' problem gambling - thats an absurd idea - but if it reduces the harm done to a percentage of PG's

That's the point: we don't know if it will work or not, so why not accept the proposal for a trial before forcing a national alteration of machines or whatever is involved.

I get what you're saying, Lindsay. I don't particularly care about the issue and am just disgusted that it's happening on a purely political basis, i.e. the Labor Party would have had no interest in anything like this had Wilkie not made it a condition of their getting government.

 

[lindsayf]

I also dont like how the topic has got onto the political agenda..but here it is. So the club lobby and various parties can grimly defend the status quo or take the opportunity to do something different that could address some of the damage being done and the ethically flawed dependence on PG revenue.

I think the local trial idea has a lot of merit too. There isnt a strong case against it other than from those who have decided that MPC has been proven elsewhere to have a beneficial effect. If a trial is to occur though it really needs to be watertight from a methodological pov so that any results cant be overly spun by vested interest groups. Otherwise it would just be a waste of time and money and result in no change - and I suspect the club lobby would be taking every opportunity to influence the result in this way.