The gambling addiction of AFL clubs

[aussierules0k]

[BAM! (shhhh)]

That same stench of addiction has been under pinning our club for far too long. It rises from the Pokie Room up thru the Trevor Barker Room and into the offices above. It's a foul smell. How proud would you all be if our Saints stood up on hind legs and announced.. "We believe Pokies are bad and we will remove them pronto"

It's a beautiful sentiment.

How much would it cost?

[Oh When the Saints]

Can I throw a spanner in the works OWTS?

What about Tattersalls? Do you buy a lottery ticket?

If so, and you won Division 1 would you give it back based on the fact that Tattersalls (through its gaming operations) cause people irreparable damage through addiction?

Not trying to be a smart-arse, just wondering on your thoughts (and FWIW I come from the same school of thought you do on pokies).......

I have never bought a lottery ticket in my life ... I'd rather grab the twenty bucks (or however much it is) and cut it into small pieces with a pair of scissors ... (and I'm not trying to be a saint ... I've done morally "bad" stuff - but gambling's not my thing)

People want to gamble, and it's human nature. You can't outlaw it. Managed gambling through things like Tattslotto is probably the "least evil" form (if that makes sense).

My issue is specifically with poker machines themselves. They are NOT analogous to any other form of gambling.

As Otiman says (and there has been a great volume of research on this:

The issue is that they use specific psychological tactics to entice you to play (pretty lights, chinking of coins, touting the magnificent prizes that can be won).

Poker machines are psychologically designed to make people gamble more.

They interfere with the human instinct to gamble and augment it.

IMO this is wrong, it's dangerous and the consequences for our society are awful.

Just take a walk through a pokies venue around lunchtime and look at the faces of some people there. Ask 'em what their kids are up to while mum is sitting there chucking money away into a machine she is hooked on.

I don't want my football club encouraging that to any greater extent than it does already.

I just can't follow your logic at all. You'd boycott the football club you fanatically support by protesting pokie machines.

I've played Pokie machines, I'm not addicted. I know the risks. Why can't other people?

Supporting a football club or making an effort to help the vulnerable members of our society?

If I sit at home and watch the football on TV, (sadly) I am giving the Saints more $$ through advertising, sponsorship and TV rights money than if I buy a membership and attend the games ...

Pokie venues are some of the saddest dumping grounds of common sense I've ever come across... but it's not like St. KFC and footy clubs using them is new... so to wax moral over their increase is a very interesting place to choose to draw the line.

I'm a realist ..... AFL clubs aren't going to give up the revenue they have from poker machines at the moment ... and where are we going to find a replacement source of revenue that allows us to operate at the same standard?

But surely we can cap the number of machines we have now, obtain any extra revenue from other sources and put in place plans to reduce our number of machines over time?

That's a realistic idea .... it's certainly not unrealistic to draw an objection to St Kilda increasing the number of poker machines from those they have currently.

I think they are a poor and unsustainable funding model too - the tide of public opinion will see a greater proportion of gambling revenue taken by governments/put back into the community if current trajectories of change continue. Becoming reliant on gambling income makes the club(s) susceptible to things they can't control.

Excellent point.

Should we have a change of government in Victoria in 2010, there will be 25% less poker machines than there are now.

An independent Senator takes position in the federal Senate (and will hold the balance of power) from July. His whole platform is to eliminate poker machines completely.

Which poker machines will be the first to be targeted?

Those run by the massive companies which exert massive influence and can buy favours with the government (as they have done in Victoria with the ALP)?

Or those run by "community organisations" such as football clubs?


Community sentiment will force a significant reduction in pokies at some point in the near future .... for the club to commit to more of them as a future source of revenue is financially irresponsible.

[Otiman]

Lotto has another trick, it gives you "your" numbers, your special birthdays and lucky numbers (tip: if you want a bigger win, make sure you have numbers over #31 and definitely over #12 - people statistically choose birthdays as lotto numbers quite regularly)

So, if you have your #3,4,12,17,29,39 (or however many numbers there are... i've never done it myself) then you believe you have an obligation to those numbers to back them every week, because "what happens if..... those numbers come up and you forget to put a ticket on".

Different psychological methods (not necessarily scientific, just evolution and survival of the most profitable) exist for different forms of gambling. For example horse racing that allows the punter to believe they can be "in control" and outsmart the bookies with "inside knowledge" and "studying the formguide".

And don't get me started on the late night quiz shows. I can go on for hours, but this is a football forum. Go Saints!

[meher baba]

Gambling addiction is increasingly being understood to be a form of depression and/or bipolar syndrome.

More than any other form of gambling, poker machines are specifically targeted at people with gambling addiction. A Productivity Commission report from a decade or so ago (ordered by the then Treasurer Peter Costello, at the urging of his brother) showed that - unlike Tattslotto, horse racing, roulette or just about any other form of gambling - most of the money invested on poker machines comes from people with gambling addiction. (Lots of people who aren't addicts play the pokies from time to time, but they are collectively only responsible for a low proportion of the money that goes into the things.)

The same study found that the heaviest players of poker machines almost universally believe the myth that machines that haven't paid out a jackpot for a while are more likely to do so than machines that haven't.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with gambling IMO: it is a human activity that probably dates back to the stone age. But, like alcohol, smoking, illicit drugs and promsicuous sex, addictive use of poker machines is a pastime which can have an adverse effect on many other people apart from the active participants. For that reason, society has a right and a need to control access to these dangerous products and I think that a severe government crackdown on poker machines is only a matter of time: certainly the advent of independent Senator Nick Xenaphon in July will have an impact.

Given this, it would be very shortsighted of the Sainters to put a lot of faith in poker machines as an ongoing source of revenue. I would have thought that a really good social club, with good food, ambience and the opportunity to combine attendance at open training sessions with an evening out is a better bet.

[The Peanut]

... I think that a severe government crackdown on poker machines is only a matter of time ...
... Given this, it would be very shortsighted of the Sainters to put a lot of faith in poker machines as an ongoing source of revenue ...

It's going to be a slow process because the Government makes so much money out of them ... but I agree with above ... we have to stick with our current income stream at the moment but should be looking ahead for alternative ideas.

We can talk all day about how silly people are that are affected by pokies or the various social implications but given the times we live in, their future in the long term is very iffy.

We have already been bitten badly (by the City of Kingston) for our involvement with pokies and this issue is not going to go away.

[Oh When the Saints]

Make no mistake - once Xenephon gets to Canberra and has Rudd's ear (and Rudd needs him to support legislation), we will start to see some progress on poker machines pretty quickly ...

Beautiful post too meher baba. Spot on. Missed your wisdom

[saintspremiers]

Ok, let's get all moralistic and together with the Dawks and Dees remove all our pokies and try and replace the revenue from elsewhere.

When all 3 clubs go broke in 2 years time, we can win the flag in the VFL instead!

[Oh When the Saints]

Not proposing that we give up what revenue we already gain from pokies.

Just that we object to any increase in future revenue from this source.

Why risk our future on a revenue stream that may be legally endangered soon?

[plugger66]

Ok, let's get all moralistic and together with the Dawks and Dees remove all our pokies and try and replace the revenue from elsewhere.

When all 3 clubs go broke in 2 years time, we can win the flag in the VFL instead!

Have to agree. Last time I looked pokies were legal and would say they will always be legal in clubs not so sure about pubs. If we are going to get fair dinkum we shouldnt serve grog either as people can be addicted to that and that is far and away more dangerous than pokies addiction. After all you can still drive after playing pokies for 5 hours but you cant drink and drive after drinking grog for 5 hours.

Ehy stop something that 97% people do not have a problem with to help 3% of people.

[Oh When the Saints]

Other "vices" are not analogous to pokies plugger66.

Foolish comparison.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/l ... ntentSwap1

There are levers that can be pulled to disarm poker machines
Charles Livingstone
March 5, 2008

EVERY week in Victoria, people using electronic gaming machines lose about $50 million. The best available estimate is that about half of that money comes from the pockets of people with gambling problems. The harm this causes includes financial ruin, relationship breakdown, the neglect of children, theft and fraud, and in some cases suicide and imprisonment.

At any given time at least 45,000 Victorians have a serious gambling problem, and more than 85% of those have that problem because of pokies. For every individual with a problem, many others are affected.

Pokies are everywhere. In many suburbs public social space is almost entirely colonised by pokies, especially in relatively disadvantaged suburbs. For all their gauche glitter, poker machines are sophisticated and highly developed devices that can easily consume $1200 an hour. And, as many researchers, including me, have discovered, few people have any understanding of how they actually work. Fallacies abound, but the harsh reality is that the operators are the winners.

And, of course, so is the Government. Not counting the GST levied on machines (which mostly comes back to the Victorian Government as well), state pokie taxes will generate about $1 billion this year. It's a super, soft tax, and it allows the Government to avoid raising taxes in other, unpopular areas. It has often been pointed out that Australia's state governments are the system's biggest addicts. Cliche or not, this is one addiction that stands in the way of genuine change.

Can we reduce the harm that pokies produce? Undoubtedly. Apart from eliminating them entirely we can certainly do much better. At present, governments adopt what public health practitioners call a "downstream approach" — we fix people up after they've fallen into the pit. A better approach is to put a fence around the pit (or perhaps, fill it in) and so stop people from falling. This is an "upstream" approach. Indeed, in its 2006 policy document, the ALP promised to implement some such measures, including reducing maximum bet limits from $10 to $5 per spin (which can occur once every 2.14 seconds), reducing the amount one can "load-up" into a machine from $9949 to $1000, and reducing the maximum that can be extracted from venue-based ATMs to $400 a day.

Unfortunately, the implementation of these measures is painfully slow, but the Government has conceded the point. The reality is that there is now ample evidence of how to make the system safer, and if we really care about public safety and wellbeing, and are committed to providing publicly licensed and sanctioned gambling that is genuine entertainment, then we could act, particularly since the Government is set to announce new arrangements for gaming machine licences from 2012 until 2032.

Although a relatively complex process, in essence, reducing maximum prizes to a couple of hundred dollars and maximum bets to $1 would form the core of a harm minimisation approach. For most recreational users such changes would have no effect. The available evidence is that they're not noticed by users, and do not reduce their enjoyment. But, again, the evidence is that these modifications do reduce harm, and are likely to cut the uptake of problem gambling.

We could split the current stock of machines into two streams. In the first stream, re-configured pokies would be licensed for use in suburban clubs and pubs. Recreational users would be unaffected. Problem gamblers could still use them, of course, but their capacity to induce harm would be drastically curtailed. There is a big difference in losing $1200 an hour and losing $200. Of course, government and the industry would lose money. Use of high-impact machines (those already in use) could be licensed only in designated gaming areas. But, instead of open access, a smart card or similar device would be required to use them. Such a card would permit setting time and/or money limits, and would allow patrons to be advised of how much money they are spending. Going further, in Canada, computerised algorithms that recognise the patterns of problem gambling, and alert gamblers accordingly, have recently been developed. Such a system would help some problem gamblers, and could even curtail use of fraudulently obtained funds — a common problem if reports from our courts are any indication.

Using high-impact machines remains possible, but in a much safer environment. Current Victorian legislation actually envisages such a split: at present, it's between high-impact and higher impact machines. But the principle has been established.

Australian poker machines are generally regarded as the most avaricious and dangerous in the world, and allowing them in suburban spaces is almost unique. This practice continues because governments, large public companies, and pub and club operators have become addicted to the money. Admitting that maintaining poker machine gambling is about making excessive profits for as long as possible would be a good start. As every user knows, being truthful about the problem is necessary if the therapy is to work.

Charles Livingstone works in the Department of Health Sciences at Monash University.

[Violent Stool]

Ehy stop something that 97% people do not have a problem with to help 3% of people.

That's a pretty good point I think.

[cowboy18]

Ehy stop something that 97% people do not have a problem with to help 3% of people.

That's a pretty good point I think.

OR you could say

Why stop something that will help 600,000 people?



That's <3% of our current population.

[plugger66]

Ehy stop something that 97% people do not have a problem with to help 3% of people.

That's a pretty good point I think.

OR you could say

Why stop something that will help 600,000 people?



That's <3% of our current population.

Surely my one year old daughter hasnt got a problem or my 99 grand mother who is in a nursing home and cannot walk.

[Violent Stool]

Ehy stop something that 97% people do not have a problem with to help 3% of people.

That's a pretty good point I think.

OR you could say

Why stop something that will help 600,000 people?



That's <3% of our current population.

Yeah, but how many people lose income due to footy injuries in local comps on a Saturday arvo?

Lots.

Do we ban footy too?

Lots of things hurt lots of people. In the end it's our choice as to whether or not we do them. In most cases, the activity that hurts many, is often thoroughly enjoyed my many others, responsibly.

I don't know, it's a tough one. Tough issue.

[bigmicka]

whatever happened to personal responsibility?

mic

[Oh When the Saints]

Whatever happened to compassion?

Whatever happened to the whole idea of community, of a society which supports it's most vulnerable members?


Or has the free market ideology become so dominant that, in the words of it's most successful proponent, "there's no such thing as society"?

[Otiman]

Whatever happened to compassion?

Whatever happened to freedom of choice? The issue shouldn't be that pokies exist, the issue should be the tricks used to keep people addicted to them.

[Oh When the Saints]

Whatever happened to compassion?

Whatever happened to freedom of choice? The issue shouldn't be that pokies exist, the issue should be the tricks used to keep people addicted to them.

Exactly.

The "tricks" get people addicted ... compassion is required to both help and support those people and put pressure on the government to change the laws and regulations in this area ...