Fixed-odds betting terminals make gambling away your cash a breeze 鈥� they let you place a bet of up to 拢100 on a digital game of chance once every 20 seconds. No skill is required to win, just pure luck. For some they can be a fun thrill, but for others they are so dangerously addictive that they have gained a reputation as the crack cocaine of gambling.
The machines are particularly prevalent in UK betting shops, and there have long been calls for the government to curb their most dangerous aspects. Today, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has to address the problem. It proposes reducing the maximum stake from 拢100 to somewhere between 拢2 and 拢50, and will also consider slowing the rate at which games can be played.
Minister Tracey Crouch said this approach aims to 鈥渞educe the potential for large session losses and therefore the potentially harmful impact on the player and their wider communities鈥�. Next, it will hold a 12-week consultation to determine the final proposals, and the UK parliament will vote on the changes in 2018.
Advertisement
So will these tweaks help? It鈥檚 that people who use fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) at least once a month lose an average of 拢1200 each per year. People can find the high frequency of game events exhilarating, but can also quick pour large wads of cash straight down the drain without really thinking.
In comparison, horse races are less frequent and require much more engagement for each bet, meaning there is more of an active choice to continue than passively choosing not to stop. Regular betters on horse racing lose an estimated average of 拢400 each year.
Slower drain
It seems reasonable, then, that slowing the rate of betting will mean gamblers think harder about whether to lay out more cash. But the problem is that we have a real lack of evidence for why the machines are so addictive and what will fix this. Studies on the impacts of reducing the maximum stake, or the frequency at which bets can be played, simply haven鈥檛 been done.
Instead, we must rely on circumstantial evidence, like the increased prevalence of problem gamblers using FOBTs. It is possible that games will remain highly addictive, and simply drain people鈥檚 wallets over a longer period of time.
鈥淭he standard of research in the UK is very poor. There鈥檚 very little openness around data with bookmakers unwilling to make data sets available for independent researchers,鈥� says at Goldsmiths, University of London.
There is evidence from abroad however. Norway, where all gambling is run by the state, decided to all together in 2007. The majority of users reported that they didn鈥檛 move to other forms of gambling and the national helpline for problem gamblers saw a reduction in calls. Although a complete ban is unlikely to win support in the UK, Norway鈥檚 experience shows that it is possible to reduce problem gambling through policy.
Some worry that changing the format of FOBTs many cause problem gamblers to use online gambling websites that have far fewer regulations in the UK 鈥� unlike in Norway, where they are also state controlled. Such online games have no limits on the maximum stakes. So, while it seems logical that reducing the maximum stakes on FOBTs will help reduce the overall harm, until a proper experiment is carried out, we simply cannot know if there will be unintended negative consequences.
