I recently attended two workshops on gaming regulation in downtown Las Vegas. The proposed changes related to introducing wagering on Olympics, other events and virtual events in Nevada race and sports books. Yes - there are controls in Nevada over what bookmakers can offer bets on!
One of the proponents was William Hill, wanting to introduce betting on virtual races, which it claims now account for 18% of its British betting shop horseracing business. Hill’s local lawyer explained correctly that this was gaming, not betting, as a random number generator determines a virtual event result.
I spoke four times over the two workshops, which were both video recorded and transcribed. This accessibility and transparency is in marked contrast to Britain, where the Gambling Commission is not public facing.
I highlighted the differences between Nevada race and sports books and British betting shops. A strict 21 minimum age limit, no damage to premises, adequate money-laundering controls, adequate staffing levels and no abuse of staff are all positives in Nevada that do not apply in Britain.
But the main difference? Virtual events constitute “betting” in Britain according to the bookies and the Gambling Commission. This is of course nonsense, as virtual events resolved by random number generation are gaming. This is how FOBTs were
introduced illegally; they were presented as “betting” rather than “gaming” although nearly all the activity was on roulette - a casino game.
Strong politicians could have said: “If you do not remove these machines you will not be able to obtain a license under the pending 2005 Gambling Act” but the bookies were able to smooch their way through.
Adult gaming centres (AGCs), unlike betting shops, were regulated prior to the Act, so could never have started with FOBTs as they would have been in breach of license. William Hill had the nerve to state that AGCs should not be allowed to have FOBTs, because AGCs did not develop FOBTs!
Newham Councilhas led the charge on highlighting that the “primary gambling activity” in betting shops is now gaming rather than betting, as FOBTs account for
over 50%of shop profits. Lack of support by the Commission for Newham ensured the charge failed. But recognising that virtual events incorrectly categorised as betting, are in fact gaming, means well over 60% of shop gross profits are gaming.
However the profits are not the activity, they are the consequence of the turnover, which is the actual wagering in the shops. The Campaign publishes estimates of these gross FOBT stakes.
But the “return to player” (RTP) as disclosed on the FOBT is 97.3% on roulette, being 97.3% of gross stakes. And it is a Commission “fair and open” requirement to disclose the gross wager based RTP!
The Commission Corporate Affairs Officer James Cook
has implied publiclythat this is a misleading statistic.
At the same time as the Gambling Commission challenges the Campaign’s gross estimates, it allows the remote gambling sectors to use gross wagering as an aid to marketing. Take advantage of the £25 sign up offer, play a bit and try to make a withdrawal and those pesky terms and conditions will say you have not reached their “wagering requirements” – or gambled the value of your bonus enough times.
Yes - the Gambling Commission allows a gross wager clause in the small print, even though a licensing objective is to ensure “fair and open” gambling!
So whilst the Commission aims to look for robust evidence, just check out page 13 of the 2013-2014 Annual Report and Accounts stating that:
“…it is not clear if lowering stakes and prize limits on these machines [FOBTs] would have any impact on problem gambling, as evidence indicates that problem gamblers adjust their play accordingly.”
The “evidence” is not identified and as there has never been an FOBT stake reduction to analyse, it could not be robust anyway. Furthermore if problem gamblers can “adjust their play” then non-problem gamblers should be able to do so more easily. So why was the recent FOBT research question, approved by the Commission, focused on looking for measures that would not impact non-problem gamblers?
The Commission motto is “keeping gambling fair and safe for all”. However in the most recent proclamation it stated “Britain’s gambling industry can do much more to make gambling safe.” So the keeper, the Commission, must have been dropping lots of balls!
The most urgent measure the Commission should adopt is to obtain and make public data from the two FOBT suppliers of an accurate count of FOBTs and the damage to FOBTs. This criminal damage is a direct consequence of FOBT problem gambler frustration. Is this evidence and information being hidden from local authorities?
In the face of the hot winds blowing from the pro-FOBT sector, the British Gambling Commission is as robust as tumbleweed rolling in the Nevada dessert.