This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/30/maximum-stake-fixed-odds-betting-terminals-restricted

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Maximum cash stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to be restricted Maximum cash stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to be restricted
(about 2 hours later)
The government has moved to assuage public fears about the spread of high-speed, high-stakes gambling machines by announcing a cut in the maximum amount of cash that can inserted into the terminals – unless players are prepared to open a betting account or get an all-clear from staff. A cut in the maximum amount of cash that can be inserted into fixed-odds betting machines is to be imposed by the government to ease concern about the high-stakes electronic devices.
Until now electronic fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) – often called the crack cocaine of gambling – allowed players to lose £100 of their own money every 20 seconds on casino games such as roulette. However, under new rules, anyone using FOBTs will need to inform staff if they want to bet more than £50 cash at a time, or get an online account so that spending can be tracked. Under the new rules, anyone using a fixed-odds betting terminal (FOBT) – often called the crack cocaine of gambling – will need to inform staff if they want to bet more than £50 cash at a time.
In its assessment, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport argued that "account-based play allows players access to up-to-date and accurate information which can reduce biased or irrational gambling-related decisions and help people maintain control". It also said: "Making payments over the counter rather than on to the machine directly can provide opportunities for intervention which may give players a reality check". Gamblers would also have the alternative of getting an online account so that spending can be tracked, following an assessment released by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
The high-stakes gambling machines, which already account for half of betting shop profits, were the subject of a surprise tax hike in the budget last month. There is evidence that restricting FOBT bets would hit bookmakers' bottom lines further. Data from the regulator shows that 7% of casino game bets on FOBTs are within the staking band of £50-100 and generate 37% of gross profits from punters. Until now the controversial electronic FOBTs - which account for half of betting shop profits - allowed players to lose £100 of their own money every 20 seconds on casino games such as roulette.
In its assessment, the DCMS argued that "account-based play allows players access to up-to-date information which can reduce biased or irrational gambling … and help people maintain control".
It added: "Making payments over the counter rather than on to the machine directly can provide opportunities for intervention which may give players a reality check."
There is evidence that restricting FOBT bets would hit bookmakers' bottom lines. Data from the regulator shows that 7% of casino game bets on FOBTs are within the staking band of £50-100 and generate 37% of gross profits from punters.
However, campaigners say that ministers have "ducked the big issue" by not cutting the maximum bet in all circumstances. A poll commissioned by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling (CFFG) found that nearly three-quarters (73%) said the £100 maximum stake that can be bet on each spin should be restricted – with 60% of those polled saying it should be slashed to only £2.However, campaigners say that ministers have "ducked the big issue" by not cutting the maximum bet in all circumstances. A poll commissioned by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling (CFFG) found that nearly three-quarters (73%) said the £100 maximum stake that can be bet on each spin should be restricted – with 60% of those polled saying it should be slashed to only £2.
Matt Zarb-Cousin of CFFG told the Guardian that the measures were a fudge. "Staff intervention does not mean player protection. We know from academic studies that employee training is the most commonly tried method to control problem gambling and the least effective. The government has ducked the issue." Matt Zarb-Cousin of CFFG told the Guardian that the measures were a fudge. "Staff intervention does not mean player protection. We know from academic studies that employee training is the most commonly tried method to control problem gambling and the least effective. Why would staff stop people from putting money into FOBTs when their pay depends on it?"
But the Association of British Bookmakers said the government proposals would "restrict growth for the sector and mean hundreds of shops and thousands of jobs are now at risk".
Before the announcement, Liberal Democrats had told the Guardian that the moves did not go far enough, urging their Conservative colleagues to cut the stake to £2. The prime minister intervened personally to ensure stakes and prizes were considered as part of the FOBT review.Before the announcement, Liberal Democrats had told the Guardian that the moves did not go far enough, urging their Conservative colleagues to cut the stake to £2. The prime minister intervened personally to ensure stakes and prizes were considered as part of the FOBT review.
Ministers also said the betting industry's new player protection measures – alerts that tell players when they have been playing for 30 minutes or when £250 has been spent – were inadequate and needed to be "toughened and made mandatory". Simon Thomas, owner of the London's Hippodrome casino, said ministers had missed an opportunity. "We have door staff, age control and our casino slot machines have £5 limits. The question is why bookmakers are allowed to peddle hard gambling products on the high street."
There will be new regulatory and planning powers to curb the clustering of high street bookmakers. Ministers said betting shops would get a separate planning "class" so that councils can control the number opening in their area. Tom Watson, the former Labour party chairman who has campaigned on the issue, pointed out that Ladbrokes and William Hill share prices had risen 7% and 5% after the announcement.
Vince Maple, the Labour leader of Medway council, which has led a campaign against the proliferation of bookmakers, tweeted that "there is nothing to stop people spending £300 a minute but it'll need either an account or human interaction … Nothing on helping problem gamblers and weak self exclusion. Very little real change." "If the reforms were meaningful then the companies' share price would not shoot up. The government is not offering any protection to vulnerable problem gamblers," said Watson. "What this means is that FOBTs will be a general election issue."
However, bookmakers warned that the moves would "restrict growth for the sector and mean hundreds of shops and thousands of jobs are now at risk".
In a statement, the Association of British Bookmakers said: "The government has failed to listen to more than 1 million voters who petitioned Downing Street this week to call for a proportionate response to the gambling industry. Enough is enough. Betting shops are fully committed to tackle problem gambling even further, but this needs to be based on facts, not scaremongering."