I have a problem with the notion of $1 bet limits (capped at $120 per hour) on poker machines. I’ve put forth my reasoning on it and so far have come up against very little argument; let alone be convinced otherwise.
My reasoning that this idea will not reduce any numbers in problem gamblers goes like this:
The very minimum spin time i have seen is about 3 seconds. It is quoted as being anywhere between 3 and 6 seconds per spin. Using the latter as the premise, at $1 per spin it is possible to lose ten dollars a minute or $600 per hour. Some say “but getting returns in the meantime would reduce the amount of spins per hour”. The return to player is regulated at anywhere between about 85c in the dollar to 91c per dollar and this figure is based on the LIFETIME of the machine. Except for the few “False wins” that come up, it is entirely possible to lose that figure of $600 per hour. Most players would not stay on a machine that refused to pay out and even if they moved on they are still going to spending at the same rate as the first machine so it is still an hour measurement.
The relationship between the return to player and what the public believe is the return is huge. A machine can be set to return infrequently for a majority of its lifetime then tweaked towards the end to “legalise” the returns.
I believe this is one of the dynamics of these machines that is responsible for the greatest harm to the children, loved ones and communities of the pokies addict. The government oversees only the tail end of a machine’s performance with regard to revenue when it does its books.
I was inspired by different people who put this idea to me a long while ago and after much reflection i believe it to be true.
I have not pushed this notion very hard as i wanted to give any oppositionists time to prove it wrong.
The ONLY way to cap losses at $120 per hour whilst limiting the max bet per spin to $1 is to increase the spin rate to 30 seconds.
For the sake of truth to prevail, i ask for anyone who knows better to bring their knowledge forward. I accept correction and will discuss respectfully any alternate views respectfully put forward.
Thank you,
Stephen K. Menadue
