Would you have a problem with the fact we’d look like redneck fkwits
In great news for the future of the AFL, Wes continue to do all they can to erase the memory of Goyder’s decisions when in charge, can’t wait to see what the awfuls got cookin.
So advertising/marketing should be banned to protect these people as well? Again the issue is where do you draw the line? Would you ban pubs and bottleshops because they entice drinkers?
Lol these machines are not T-800 hunter killers. They are standardised machines that treat all equally, there is no incorporated AI that identifies vulnerable minded gamblers. They are restricted by law to return a certain percentage to the punters. I think in the 80-90% range.
I liked it better when it was battleships.
The 80-90 range is right. But that doesn’t mean exactly what you think. Read this detailed analysis which I found online - it’s quite interesting (I didn’t get my head around it at first)
what about fast food joints who are specifically designed to exploit people ?
what about big chains who exploit children workers in other countries, or pay 1 dollar a day ?
what about companies who test on animals ?
what about banks who are exploiting everyone ?
what about car companies who lie about them exploiting and destroying the environment ?
what about a local business who exploits it’s workers behind closed doors, that you don’t know anything about ?
what about shopping centers who exploit people with kids and set up their shops where lollies are right infront of necessity everyday items ?
and to answer your earlier comment smj, I wouldn’t care one way or the other if they ran a gun shop, it’s a bit obtuse to say they’d start selling guns at the hanger, cos yeah.
I’d hope they’d be doing everything possible to make sure the club is financially safe and viable beyond needing help via the afl.
I don’t care if they keep the pokies venue or not, sell it or not, as long as it’s a business decision and not solely a moral choice without regard for financial planning, because again once you start making business decisions based on one moral view, you may not like the next decision that’s made, or the one after that.
What about is just about the most stupid argument you could have.
We specifically are debating the one topic. How about we discuss the pros and cons of that?
What about elephants?
Have we lost their trust?
Speaking of misery and disadvantaged people, do you want to ban alcohol as well?
Don’t aspire to do this good thing because hey there’s this other bad thing allready.
Interesting you said you didn’t get your head around it at 1st as I assumed you would have already understood the sums. Basically you can bet $1 & “win” 90c every turn which of course means you lose every turn but that meets the requirements. I’d love to know if any actual study has been done on cash in v cash out of the venue as of course even on the days when Gladys turns her 1st $20 into $200 she’s very likely to put all of that win back into the machines. A controlled test for example where 100 known gamblers (not just addicts but people who enjoy playing) enter a venue per day each with $100 & then leave when they are out of money, have had enough or want to leave with the money they have won or left. I think only something like that would give a true indication of what the real returns are.
The biggest con these days is that most have some form of jackpot. This is usually a lot higher than you could win on a normal spin & by keeping a running total its a real incentive to chase. Again the reality is that it only goes up by 1c for every 1-2 dollars wagered so the whole “its gotta go off soon” enticement overlooks the facts that its been tens of thousands of spins in the making. Many regular players claim that these jackpots mean far less returns from the normal spins & again this would be interesting to clarify given the % thats added to the jackpots.
No 1 chained Gladys to the pokie!
No 1 told Gladys this is what we want you to do!
Gladys has a brain in which she uses it to say yes or no…
Yes ill gamble, No I won’t smoke, yes ill buy shares, no I won’t play pokies, yes ill chuck 5 bucks on a horse, no tatts lotto is a gib, yes I will buy drugs, no I don’t need a cat…
Kapeesh…we all have brains and Gladys knows or should know better.
I couldn’t care less about Pokie licenses.
People get addicted, just like they do to alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, sex, driving fast and a whole bunch of other things.
I can’t see any reason why the club should get rid of their pokie licenses any more than they should turn in their alcohol licenses.
People that spend all their money on pokies are no different to the old drunk that used to come home on payday with no money left.
Protecting the population from that evil was a spectacular success in the USA (NOT) cant see why we need to protect the population from gambling when most of the population dont have a problem.
I am all for making more things legal rather than banning more.
Club provides a service to people who want to use it. If you dont want to use the service don’t.
I like the free cookies.
Gladys has the beginnings of dementia
Gladys doesn’t have anything to spend the money on, in fact she doesn’t even know how much is in her account
Gladys isn’t even really aware that the money the home gives her is hers
So we want to ban the pokies to protect people with dementia?
No, or rather I’ve got nothing to add to the argument.
Just wanted to refute shortofasangas assertion that we are all rational people fully in control of our actions. It’s a nice fairy tale.
No we are not all in full control of our actions. But we cant protect everyone from everything.
There is a staggering amount of psychological research that goes into poker machine design, affecting all aspects of the machine from the graphic design to the payout amounts and patterns, and it’s all intended to stimulate all sorts of sub-rational risk-reward responses and addictive behaviours in the human brain. Personally I find the whole field as creepy as ■■■■, but that’s what happens. And as far as I know, the regulation on this sort of thing is minimal if not non-existent beyond the standard TV ‘no subliminal messaging’ type level.
Is Gladys a rational individual 100% responsible for her own actions when the designers of the machine she’s playing on have spent years and leveraged a vast body of neuroscientific research in order to basically hack her higher brain function so that she keeps feeding the machine even when her rationality would probably tell her not to?
The answer is certainly not a flat ‘no’, but it’s really hard to give an unambiguous ‘yes’ either. The truth lies uneasily between the two.
I just want to know when I can get coke, pills and weed at the pub.
Why is everyone protecting me?
I won’t hurt myself(well much) promise.