East Lancashire punters spent more than £270m on gambling machines in 2012

10:54am Monday 14th January 2013 in News

Some punters spend hours every day on the machines Some punters spend hours every day on the machines

MORE than £270million was staked on fixed odds betting machines in East Lancashire last year, it has been claimed.

And it has led to accus-ations that the terminals are the ‘crack cocaine of gambling’.

In Blackburn alone, £76million was gambled on 73 machines in 20 betting shops, according to the Campaign For Fairer Gambling.

They say gamblers in Darwen and Rossendale staked £41million, Hyndburn’s book-makers saw £49million gambled, Pendle £38million, and Ribble Valley £19million.

In Burnley, which has 66 shops, £49million was fed into 47 touch-screen roulette and casino gaming machines in 2012.

Hyndburn and Haslingden MP Graham Jones, who has spoken out over his concern that people can become addicted to the machines, said the figures proved that a review of the terminals was needed urgently.

Nationally the statistics revealed that more was gambled in areas of high unemployment and deprivation than in wealthier areas.

The figures were put together by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, a non-profit organisation which campaigns against problem betting, using statistics based on industry figures, surveys and work by Adrian Parkinson, who was involved with launching fixed odds betting terminals.

However the Association of British Bookmakers in response said the figures did not take into account sums paid out by the machines, which they say have a payout rate of up to 97 per cent.

Because of money returned in winnings by the machines, a total of £8.2million was lost by gamblers in East Lancashire.

Mr Jones said: “These figures provide further evidence that this review needs to take place urgently.

“When more than £270million is staked in East Lancashire alone it must look at stakes and speed of play.

“I also want to see betting shops put into their own planning use class to give local authorities more power over the number of betting shops and machines on our high streets.

“It is difficult to track the impact of these machines on problem gambling so I want the gambling industry to fund an annual independent survey that monitors gambling addiction across the industry.

“Ultimately I think these machines should be removed from the high street.”

Customers at a betting shop in Blackburn said they were shocked by the figures.

Joe McEwan said: “I usually just pop in for the odd flutter, but you do see people sticking a lot of money into the machines.

“To think so much cash is being thrown away just in Blackburn alone is incredible.”

Dom Toothill said: “There should be a limit really, as people can get into real problems gambling away so much money.

“Surely people don’t think they are actually going to get back what they put in?”

Nikki Hustings, a debt specialist for Lancashire West Citizens Advice Bureaux, said she had seen evidence that the machines could lead to problem gambling.

She said: “We’ve had several people seeking debt counselling who are drawn to these type of betting machines.

“I’ve seen more than one person bring in their bank statements and they’re making several trips to the cashpoint in one afternoon, withdrawing 10 and 20 pounds a time.

“They freely admit it’s to feed their habit with the betting shop machines.”

Mr Parkinson said: “It is possible to stake up to £100 every 20 seconds.

“The high stakes and speed of play have led to the machines being called ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’. Legislation limits each betting shop to four, so bookies leapfrog regulations by opening up as many shops as possible, which is why we get clustering, especially in poorer areas.

“We recommend reducing the maximum stake from £100 down to £2, increasing the time between plays, and removing table game content.”

A spokesman for the Association of British Bookmakers said: “The idea that bookmakers target vulnerable communities is both false and offensive.

“Like any other retailer, we locate our shops where footfall is high and rents are affordable. These factors vary, which explains there can be different numbers of shops in different parts of the country.

"At a time of economic uncertainty and record retail vacancies, we are proud to play our part in supporting jobs right across the UK."

Comments(13)

burner says...
11:02am Mon 14 Jan 13

MUGS

Report this post »

Gamblor says...
11:27am Mon 14 Jan 13

This is an astonishing amount and goes to show that there are a number of people across East Lancs who may have a problem with gambling.

Support is available at various meetings being run by Gamblers Anonymous across the area.

Meetings are available in Blackburn, Accrington and a new one is being launched this Thursday in Burnley.

For a list of times and venues please click the following link...

http://www.gamblersa
nonymous.org.uk/~www
gambl/index.php/meet
ings/9-North-West

*note the Burnley meeting is not yet on the above page but is starting this Thursday at the Salvation Army building in the town centre, running from 7pm - 9pm.

Report this post »

burner says...
11:58am Mon 14 Jan 13

. . " they say have a payout rate of up to 97 per cent " .
.
So punters are walking around here with some £260 million pounds in their pockets ??? !!! Pull the other one !

Report this post »

2 for 5p says...
12:31pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Iwish I could invest in one sounds like a good return

Report this post »

2 for 5p says...
12:32pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Iwish I could invest in one sounds like a good return

Report this post »

2 for 5p says...
12:32pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Iwish I could invest in one sounds like a good return

Report this post »

lwg76 says...
2:15pm Mon 14 Jan 13

What twaddle, you may as well accept that statistically the intestinal venting of Hippopotami in the upper Nile has a direct correlation with the output of European Steel Mills.

Only 8.2 million was actually spent, sorry, lost, how much of the £268.2 million staked and not lost was actual money and not winnings that were ploughed straight back into the machine. If it was "real money", where is it? There is only one place it could be, if not in the hands of the bookies, back in the pockets of the punters who put it there in the first place.

Consider this,:

If £100 was bet and the average pay out was won, the punter would have £97 returned. If the punter re-bet that £97 and again only won the average pay out there would be £94 returned. At this point the punter would have staked a total £197 and still have £94. Has the punter lost £6 or £103. The headline of this article implies that our poor punter has staked £197 and therefore lost £103.

If our hypothetical "hooked" gambler carries on reinvesting his "winnings" taking a win of 97% of his stake (or a loss of 3%) each time a total of 60 bets could be placed before the Original £100 has been whittled away to zero.

Now if the individual stakes are added up, our luckless punter would have staked, (£100 + £97 + £94 and so on), a total of £2,314. £2,214 of this would not actually have existed, it would just be reducing sums going round and round. The punter would have still only have bet and lost a total of £100 and the bookie have only gained £100.

So quite a lot of the articles sensationalising headline of £280 million pounds spent did not exist.

I am not saying that there is not a gambling problem, there probably is, but sensationalising the figures to demonise and shock does not help.

Also the patronising attitude of the analysts, surveyors and the self styled "great and good" is reprehensible,

By linking the affect on E Lancs. to National statistics the authors are implying that the down trodden poor of Accrington, Burnley, Cliitheroe and Darwen, must not be allowed to fritter away their groats on slot machines while consuming a can of supermarket ale and a Mcdonalds. Tut tut, what disgraceful behaviour. At the same time of course, the behaviour of those at Ascot, Brighton, Cheltenham and Epsom, gambling thousands on the Gee Gees whilst swigging Pimms and Dom Perignon from Mortnum and Fasons hampers is perfectly OK yah.

Incidentally, how much of the £8.2 million lost ended up in the hands of the patronising "Great and the Good" in the form of taxation, rents and business rates.

Report this post »

lwg76 says...
2:18pm Mon 14 Jan 13

OOps, the figure in para 2 should be £261.8 million staked and not lost.

Report this post »

iasiah fartwell says...
2:38pm Mon 14 Jan 13

the only winners are the place's with these machines and the machine makers

Report this post »

8 Ball Deluxe says...
4:21pm Mon 14 Jan 13

lwg76 wrote:
What twaddle, you may as well accept that statistically the intestinal venting of Hippopotami in the upper Nile has a direct correlation with the output of European Steel Mills.

Only 8.2 million was actually spent, sorry, lost, how much of the £268.2 million staked and not lost was actual money and not winnings that were ploughed straight back into the machine. If it was "real money", where is it? There is only one place it could be, if not in the hands of the bookies, back in the pockets of the punters who put it there in the first place.

Consider this,:

If £100 was bet and the average pay out was won, the punter would have £97 returned. If the punter re-bet that £97 and again only won the average pay out there would be £94 returned. At this point the punter would have staked a total £197 and still have £94. Has the punter lost £6 or £103. The headline of this article implies that our poor punter has staked £197 and therefore lost £103.

If our hypothetical "hooked" gambler carries on reinvesting his "winnings" taking a win of 97% of his stake (or a loss of 3%) each time a total of 60 bets could be placed before the Original £100 has been whittled away to zero.

Now if the individual stakes are added up, our luckless punter would have staked, (£100 + £97 + £94 and so on), a total of £2,314. £2,214 of this would not actually have existed, it would just be reducing sums going round and round. The punter would have still only have bet and lost a total of £100 and the bookie have only gained £100.

So quite a lot of the articles sensationalising headline of £280 million pounds spent did not exist.

I am not saying that there is not a gambling problem, there probably is, but sensationalising the figures to demonise and shock does not help.

Also the patronising attitude of the analysts, surveyors and the self styled "great and good" is reprehensible,

By linking the affect on E Lancs. to National statistics the authors are implying that the down trodden poor of Accrington, Burnley, Cliitheroe and Darwen, must not be allowed to fritter away their groats on slot machines while consuming a can of supermarket ale and a Mcdonalds. Tut tut, what disgraceful behaviour. At the same time of course, the behaviour of those at Ascot, Brighton, Cheltenham and Epsom, gambling thousands on the Gee Gees whilst swigging Pimms and Dom Perignon from Mortnum and Fasons hampers is perfectly OK yah.

Incidentally, how much of the £8.2 million lost ended up in the hands of the patronising "Great and the Good" in the form of taxation, rents and business rates.
So you consider putting £100 on and coming out with £97 as WINNING,
Bless you, they say a fool and his money are easily parted, this rings true in your case. Bye Fool

Report this post »

Geek boy says...
5:41pm Mon 14 Jan 13

8 Ball Deluxe wrote:
lwg76 wrote:
What twaddle, you may as well accept that statistically the intestinal venting of Hippopotami in the upper Nile has a direct correlation with the output of European Steel Mills.

Only 8.2 million was actually spent, sorry, lost, how much of the £268.2 million staked and not lost was actual money and not winnings that were ploughed straight back into the machine. If it was "real money", where is it? There is only one place it could be, if not in the hands of the bookies, back in the pockets of the punters who put it there in the first place.

Consider this,:

If £100 was bet and the average pay out was won, the punter would have £97 returned. If the punter re-bet that £97 and again only won the average pay out there would be £94 returned. At this point the punter would have staked a total £197 and still have £94. Has the punter lost £6 or £103. The headline of this article implies that our poor punter has staked £197 and therefore lost £103.

If our hypothetical "hooked" gambler carries on reinvesting his "winnings" taking a win of 97% of his stake (or a loss of 3%) each time a total of 60 bets could be placed before the Original £100 has been whittled away to zero.

Now if the individual stakes are added up, our luckless punter would have staked, (£100 + £97 + £94 and so on), a total of £2,314. £2,214 of this would not actually have existed, it would just be reducing sums going round and round. The punter would have still only have bet and lost a total of £100 and the bookie have only gained £100.

So quite a lot of the articles sensationalising headline of £280 million pounds spent did not exist.

I am not saying that there is not a gambling problem, there probably is, but sensationalising the figures to demonise and shock does not help.

Also the patronising attitude of the analysts, surveyors and the self styled "great and good" is reprehensible,

By linking the affect on E Lancs. to National statistics the authors are implying that the down trodden poor of Accrington, Burnley, Cliitheroe and Darwen, must not be allowed to fritter away their groats on slot machines while consuming a can of supermarket ale and a Mcdonalds. Tut tut, what disgraceful behaviour. At the same time of course, the behaviour of those at Ascot, Brighton, Cheltenham and Epsom, gambling thousands on the Gee Gees whilst swigging Pimms and Dom Perignon from Mortnum and Fasons hampers is perfectly OK yah.

Incidentally, how much of the £8.2 million lost ended up in the hands of the patronising "Great and the Good" in the form of taxation, rents and business rates.
So you consider putting £100 on and coming out with £97 as WINNING,
Bless you, they say a fool and his money are easily parted, this rings true in your case. Bye Fool
No but you would only lose £3 not the £100 staked. Muppet

Report this post »

Geek boy says...
5:55pm Mon 14 Jan 13

burner wrote:
. . " they say have a payout rate of up to 97 per cent " .
.
So punters are walking around here with some £260 million pounds in their pockets ??? !!! Pull the other one !
No but they didn't physically put £280m in the machines either, it's turnover, so they could put £20, in play for two hrs and turnover a couple of grand.

Report this post »

Noiticer says...
7:42pm Mon 14 Jan 13

It is another illustration of the level this country has sunk to and the aggressive exploitation in pursuit of profit by these companies. Time to rid the high streets of this type of outlet. Let's try to raise standards and people's horizons.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree