The Association of British Bookmakers (ABB), is again providing information that is irrelevant to the substance of the FOBT debate. They recently quoted new macro Health Survey statistics and then conflates them to imply that all must be well with FOBTs. What is not made clear is that the Health Survey is based on contacting head of households, so is very unlikely to be representative of the at-risk, vulnerable FOBT demographic of the under-25 age group, the unemployed, the low-waged and immigrant communities.
The ABB, whilst willing to tout macro statistics from surveys when it suits them, deny the insight provided into the specifics of FOBTs in the secondary research based on British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS). The analysis based on the 2007 BGPS showed that
FOBTs have a stronger association with problem gambling that any other gambling activity. Estimates based on the 2010 BGPS showed that
FOBT problem gamblers lose more than the total problem gambler losses combined on casino table games, arcade slots, horseracing, dog racing, football pools and bingo.
There are flaws in all macro-level gambling prevalence surveys. Firstly, they relate only to that particular year, so do not collate lifetime problem gambling statistics. Secondly, they are unlikely to reveal the true depth of problem gambling, as denial to family and self is a component of problem gambling. Thirdly, they identify infrequent, casual low-stake gamblers, such as weekly lottery ticket buyers as gamblers, whereas for most forms of gambling it is the core group of regular gamblers that are generating most of the revenue.
So, this type of research is always likely to give an underestimate of problem gambling.
The ABB assert that action against FOBTs would constitute banning random products for political ends. How can any "political end" be achieved by sensible restrictions on FOBTs?
FOBTs are not a random product. FOBTs
generate 11 times more gross revenue than land based casino machines, and FOBT roulette generates 3.25 times more gross revenuethan land-based table and electronic casino roulette. It is also generating over 3.5 times more gross revenue from British remote gamblers than all casino table and slot games on all remote gambling sites. FOBTs have gone from zero to £1,552 million in 11 years. The only rational explanation is the addictive nature of FOBT roulette and the vulnerable demographic attracted to betting shop FOBTs.
The history of FOBTs further demonstrates they are not just a random product. They were introduced illegally according to the then regulator, which at the time was the Gaming Board.
The ABB research to support their legitimization, described as "predictable and worthless" by Tessa Jowell’s special advisor Nick Bent at DCMS, was biased towards looking at the busiest sports and race days only, so did not give an accurate reflection of FOBT activity compared to over-the-counter activity.
The stakes on FOBTs mean that they are not just a random product. FOBTs allow stakes of £100 per spin compared to a maximum of £2 on all other high-street machines. This means that the bookmakers have enjoyed a protected monopoly, based on illegal introduction and questionable research that has grossed them probably over £10 billion and counting, with probably over £1 billion gross and counting to the FOBT suppliers.
The
Campaignis pleased that FOBTs are finally getting the exposure needed to ensure that the
truefacts will eventually become known. It will then be inevitable that common sense will prevail and there will be an FOBT maximum stake per spin reduction down to £2, in line with the highest maximum on other high-street machines.