Should Gambling Advertising Be Banned?

bot43 · 06-07-2018 12:26pm

Then you see an ad like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGsK6DOYIs0

Honestly the first time I saw this, I genuinely thought the ad was about gambling carefully ie he caught the glass one. It was a pure fluke. Next time if a glass falls out of the press, you wont catch it. Same as your bets, you will not win every time.

4068ac1elhodqr · 06-07-2018 1:14pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, Lotteries are largely private pension funds these days (profit making private companies), with a good bit of state taxation.
Whatever's left over (after prizes and profits) goes to 'good causes' circa only 25-30% of total sales.

In this instance bookie's lotteries can offer better odds and value, as long as you offer % of your winnings, to what you yourself deem 'good causes'.

The reason betting is actually 'currently opening up' in the USA is down to one factor: Tax Receipts. Currently they loose $10's of bns, to the black market. Now the IRS wants their slice of this pie, even after all this time, and likely against the majority public voice.

This highlights the core issue. It's near impossible to stop, therefore it does need strict regulation combined with corporate repsonsibiliy. The sheer amount of ads currently broadcast, does not help in this case.

Realistically only about 10% of people should ever, ever attempt to gamble.

Some of us have incredible self-control, indepth skill, math advantage wizardry, knowledge or insight of real-world events. (not that virtual bingo, casino, poker, games nonsense - stay well clear of ALL of that).

Ability to rise above natural reactions, make 'clear balanced decisions' through undertanding of the dangers. An ability to recognise, and thus avoid patterns of dopamine-release trigger situations. Recognise that neural-pathways can negatively activated, influencing decisions particularly under certain enviromental situations.

If you can't give up years of daily smoking or coffee 'instantly' through pure self-will. If you 'need' sugar, in your tea. If you can't have a single biscuit in a packet without having 'just a couple more'. If you can't have a glass of wine without finishing the bottle. If you can't go to the shops without impuse buying something unnecessary. If you can't kept to exceedingly strict budgets, and have massive innate collections of shoes, collectables and so on...

....it's rather simply, 'not for you'.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-07-2018 11:24pm

Armani Square Knob wrote: »

On-line it's very little skill, mostly luck
- from an anonymous RNG's machine's Math.random() function.

except it's more likely to be PRNG unless they use a truly independent source of entrophy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/4-time-lottery-winner-not-exactly-lucky-2011-8?IR=T

Joan Ginther, 63, won almost $21 million since her winning spree began in 1993. At the time that she won the fourth jackpot, the AP wrote that her chances of winning the lottery was 1 in 18 septillion, (18 with 24 zeros after it) almost an impossibility.

...
"Once she discovered a pattern, Ginther would have had to wait until a winning ticket was scheduled to show up in a sparsely populated region--the less competition for that winning ticket, the better. It would be crucial to pick a place that she had reason to visit, such as Bishop and the surrounding towns. It would also be helpful if the store owner held the tickets for her."

HappyAsLarE · 07-07-2018 11:28pm

Try_harder wrote: »

Skill and chance

You can calculate the chance and play accordingly so it’s pure skill.

Birneybau · 07-07-2018 11:36pm

I despise Paddy Power and their banter sh!te.

bodice ripper · 07-07-2018 11:37pm

The bookie's is a trap house.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-07-2018 12:03am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

except it's more likely to be PRNG unless they use a truly independent source of entrophy.

True perhaps only ‘infinite quantum multi-verse level processing’ is ‘leaning^’ towards true random.

But even then ^nature itself isn’t fully random. See: 1.6180327868852. More obvious, is our own planet’s basic reciprocal-lock {40}{23}. ‘The Universe itself displays intelligent predictable design’.

Usually it’s quasi-random RNGs (displays patterns), or pseudo-random. CSPRNG helps but is slower. Any code (thus:deterministic) call to random, must start from a seed value: perhaps timestamp or such.

Hardware/software artefacts can also be an issue, as are quality, source assessor(motive) and actual methods/frequency of testing. Not to mention obvious security, dark code, back-doors or what have ye’.

After all that (phew!), most shop FOBT machines are flawed: commonly and openly hard-wired at 93% rtn (like the people that use them).

Roulette (French) {36} slightly stealthily excludes the ‘0’ in advertised offers (instant house advantage). −1 × 36⁄37 + 35 × 1⁄37 = −0.0270 (i.e. 2.70% house edge).

Poker too at e.g. 5% commission, is hardly useful in an AvB scenario. I.e. BEP (break-even, or <4% profit) is actually a ‘loss event’.

De Bhál · 08-07-2018 12:07am

Yes, mainly so I don't have to see Ray Winstone.

SEPT 23 1989 · 08-07-2018 12:17am

Yeah I hate it

never gamble online always in shop but even these are being tarted up into something I don't recognise or enjoy

Donald Trump · 08-07-2018 10:52am

2 Scoops wrote: »

Not true, sorry to be crude but you don't know what you're talking about. Poker is mostly maths and using a solid strategy/adjusting to opponents. I've played online poker for like 10 years and tracked every single hand I've played.

Here's my graph from last month for example. I've won tens of thousands only playing micro stakes cash games. It takes a lot of work/study but it's possible.

Yeah but it's a zero sum game. (Less than that if there are commissions and fees).

Every Euro that you win is taken from some poor gobshite. You aren't creating anything, just siphoning money from other people

skooterblue2 · 08-07-2018 11:22am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But the National Lottery is a "Charity", in the loosest definition of the word

super_furry · 08-07-2018 11:28am

Certainly ban it before 10pm. Kids watching any kind of sport are bombarded with game long advertisements.

Grayson · 08-07-2018 11:31am

Birneybau wrote: »

I despise Paddy Power and their banter sh!te.

I think that it was paddy powers that comisioned a study that found that up to 1/3 of people who gamble online are addicted. That's a fcuking disgusting industry.

And I gamble. I buy an occasional lottery ticket and would place small bets on big sporting events. In a week I'd spend less than a tenner.

I had a great aunt who would place bets every weekend. She'd study horses like mad. She'd place 5 pence on one horse, 10 on another. She always had a small purse that she'd work from.

Gambling can be fun. But there need to be limits on it, especially online. It's too easy for someone with an addictive personality to get addicted and flush everything away.

Atoms for Peace · 08-07-2018 11:38am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

But the National Lottery is a "Charity", in the loosest definition of the word

It did operate for many years as a sort of slush fund for government TDs on local projects, of course known it mostly for the benefit of a Canadian pension fund.

nice_guy80 · 08-07-2018 11:58am

Yes

Gambling destroys families and people's lives

Pedro K · 08-07-2018 11:59am

Link to my previous posts on gambling

Gambling is insidious. It's a nasty industry, and I think the ads are dangerous. Every single ad break is littered with bookie's ads. "Bet in play, now!"

I worry that kids will automatically associate betting with gambling and be drawn in.

I posted this on another thread about gambling and the industry. I've worked for more than one bookies. I don't anymore.

It's ruthless. I worked in bookies in both Ireland and England, over the phone and in shops.

It can bring out the worst in people. I've dealt with loads of people trying to hide bets from their other halves too. Sometimes they can be terrible to deal with. Whispering over the phone then becoming agitated and abusive because you haven't heard them.

The same people waiting for me to open the shop door in the morning were the same people I would be pushing out the door at ten in the evening while they're reaching for the gaming machine trying to get 'just one more spin,' on roulette.

I've seen grown men (and in some cases women) attack gaming machines, cry, become abusive towards me and my colleagues because they're losing and then try justify it as just a bot of harmless fun.

The bookies say they want you to gamble responsibly. They do in their arse. They want every ****ing penny you have.

Customers with phone accounts are categorised. The more money you lose, the better your category and the quicker your call is dealt with.

If you start to win money the bookie will restrict your betting. You'll ask for €500 win at 10/1 and they'll say you can have €5 t the SP. Keep winning, they'll just close your account.

I saw one man come into my shop, win £500 on a machine, and within 15 minutes he had put that back in plus another £700 from his visa debit card. His daily limit. Every time he came up to put more on he looked like he was going to cry. I really wanted to tell him to stop as he seemed a nice guy, but as the employee you can't do that.

Another dude once won a €45k return on his phone account. I'm sure he told everyone about it. What he didn't tell everyone, I would bet, is that he gave it back to us (and then some) in a week and a half.

Not that it's any justification, but at least with alcohol, generally there's only so much you can have before your body just won't let you take any more.

Barnaboy · 08-07-2018 2:37pm

Pedro K wrote: »

Link to my previous posts on gambling

Gambling is insidious. It's a nasty industry, and I think the ads are dangerous. Every single ad break is littered with bookie's ads. "Bet in play, now!"

I worry that kids will automatically associate betting with gambling and be drawn in.

Excellent post, sums up the industry perfectly. But nothing will change, too many people in power gain massively from the industry.

skooterblue2 · 08-07-2018 2:41pm

Grayson wrote: »

I think that it was paddy powers that comisioned a study that found that up to 1/3 of people who gamble online are addicted. That's a fcuking disgusting industry.

And I gamble. I buy an occasional lottery ticket and would place small bets on big sporting events. In a week I'd spend less than a tenner.

I had a great aunt who would place bets every weekend. She'd study horses like mad. She'd place 5 pence on one horse, 10 on another. She always had a small purse that she'd work from.

Gambling can be fun. But there need to be limits on it, especially online. It's too easy for someone with an addictive personality to get addicted and flush everything away.

My good lady works in retail, she says the amount of teenagers buying low cost scratch cards is staggering. That is where the addiction is setting in. The medium of Television is a vehicle for conditioning.

skooterblue2 · 08-07-2018 2:44pm

My uncle was a sap and lost 3 farms and the last one was taken in the early 90 when the economy was at an all time low.

The neighbours gave him half price for his land and the bank took the rest.

Gambling is just one way to fill a hole that is addiction. Sad people with sad lives

gctest50 · 08-07-2018 3:03pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

My good lady works in retail, she says the amount of teenagers buying low cost scratch cards is staggering. That is where the addiction is setting in. The medium of Television is a vehicle for conditioning.

Probably got no "likes" that day - cos facebook n more have tapped into that little dopamine & friends hit that you get from gambling

skooterblue2 · 08-07-2018 3:06pm

gctest50 wrote: »

Probably got no "likes" that day - cos facebook n more have tapped into that little dopamine & friends hit that you get from gambling

Horrible but true. It is the perfect drug, cheap, easy to access and very controlling. We spend 9 years of our lives on social media.

Billythekid19 · 23-02-2021 10:04pm

Watching the champions league tonight there are a flood of gambling ads at the break. I reckon this will be seen as smoking was in the 80s in years to come. It's an affliction and should not be advertised when children are watching.

SeanW · 25-02-2021 11:21am

KungPao wrote: »

No.

If something is legal it should be legal to advertise it imo.

And that includes fags.

I think there's an argument for banning advertisements of vices.

If a vice is said to do harm, advocates of a "nanny state" would advocate banning them, or having severe restrictions. But civil libertarians would object and say, no, people should be allowed to make their own choices and be responsible for them. I tend to agree with the latter.

But the dirty little secret of advertising is that it works. Companies advertise not necessarily to sell you a product, but to continuously maintain their "mindshare" and in some cases to sell you a lifestyle dependent on them. Ladbrokes did exactly this a while back, they had a TV ad campaign where they pushed "The Ladbrokes lifestyle." Marketing often aims to target the persons sub-conscious mind more than their conscious mind. That's why it's so effective. It goes into your psyche, below the level of thought. It is insidious.

I say let's have all the vices. Fast food. Booze. Fags. Gambling. Weed and other drugs. All of it. But make it so that if anyone partakes of the vice, it's their decision - and their decision alone. If you want to partake in a vice, it's there if you want it. But the peddlers can't glamourise it, can't sell your lifestyles dependent on it, can't bombard people with mass messaging. And definitely no targeting children.

Count Dracula · 11-06-2022 12:38pm

Absolutely, with immediate effect. It is more condescending than comparing domestic hygiene products. It fails miserably at trying to establish the fantasy that it is all a bit of a laugh. The television medium gets monotonous after a while. It lacks dignity, like every punter is epitomised as a happy go lucky so and so, who tags along to a race meeting every weekend with a giant gormless smile and a wad of fifty's. It makes me sick. I remember backing horses and listening to a radio on the counter of the betting shop. Odds were posted on a blackboard and it was just as exciting. Mind you more people went racing then. They should at least have more Alickadoos on the television spouting opinion also, not just the same old drivel from contemporary retired jockeys. Boring enough, except for Luke Harvey and Jane Mangan. I also think Sally Ann Grassick is beautiful. Peter Crouch, how did we let this happen? What is the point of Peter Crouch... can anyone please tell me?

Should Gambling Advertising Be Banned?

Comments