The house does NOT always win.. Thankfully

[HMS_Dave]

I guess BILLIONAIRE Fred Done will end up firing someone or perhaps many...

 

[Bonefish Blues]

I guess BILLIONAIRE Fred Done will end up firing someone or perhaps many...

Is that the Fred Done who started a business from nothing with his brother and who in his late 70s is still working full time, and a substantial philanthropist to boot. Good luck to them.

Look, here's a thing, it's always been okay to hate the bookies, but what they do is legal, regulated, and a damn sight better than what used to apply when betting was illegal. For the overwhelming majority of people, betting is a discretionary leisure spend in exactly the same way as a pint or a coffee and cake at a Costa Coffee, let's remember that before we get too prurient about it.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

OK - post above seems to contradict what I have seen on new channels

BUT

it seems that my impression was partly wrong - maybe the odds are not so bad

quote from Wikipedia (yes I know but...)
QUOTE
FOBTs have been criticised due to the potential for addiction when playing the machines. They have been dubbed the "crack cocaine" of gambling by critics.[7][8] In response to this criticism, in 2014 bookmakers represented by the Association of British Bookmakers introduced the facility for customers to set time and money limits when using FOBTs.[9] In October 2017, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport began studying the possibility of reducing the £100 maximum bet limit[10] and a decision was made in May 2018 to limit the maximum bet to £2.[11] This new maximum bet limit came into effect on 1 April 2019. Multiple bookmakers argued that the resultant loss of revenue could force them to downsize their high street operations (with the industry estimating that 2,100 shops could be collectively closed): in July 2019, William Hill announced plans to close 700 shops, primarily citing the new regulation. MP Tracey Crouch countered these arguments, noting that industry statistics showed downward trends in revenue from physical betting shops in favour of online betting, even before the restriction came into effect.
UNQUOTE

however - I point out the comment about 'the crack cocaine of gambling' which is what I was commenting on
I was not, however, aware of the fact (apparently) that the odds are not as bad as the new media have given

but the concept that the EFFECT on problem gamblers - and potential problem gamblers - still remains

just show how complex this is - and how the big businesses use psychology to make profits

But thanks to the above poster for pointing out that impressions from media miss out some things in this case

but in a way if those odds are right this makes is morally even worse
in spite of the odds being kinda OK
they STILL con people into loosing massive amount of money using them

the gambling industry is seriously screwed up!!

 

[Cycleops]

If a cash machine overdispenses because of a problem then it's moral to keep the cash, presumably?

No, that can be proved but in this case we are not told what the glitch was or how it occurred.

Don't know why they just didn't give it the guy in the first place, they can afford it and it would have been fantastic publicity.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

No, that can be proved but in this case we are not told what the glitch was or how it occurred.

Don't know why they just didn't give it the guy in the first place, they can afford it and it would have been fantastic publicity.

It was accepted as evidence that the software was defective, meaning a multiplier effect took place, contrary to the design of the game. That is, someone didn't do their job right, so the bettor won a great deal more than he should have been able to win. It could be proved. What it turned on was that the drafting of the terms of the game were insufficient to allow the company to withhold payment - that's why I was making the point around morality.

 

[Cycleops]

I'm sure it was 'contrary to the design if the game'. Weasel words, he won the money fair and square.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

OK - post above seems to contradict what I have seen on new channels

BUT

it seems that my impression was partly wrong - maybe the odds are not so bad

quote from Wikipedia (yes I know but...)
QUOTE
FOBTs have been criticised due to the potential for addiction when playing the machines. They have been dubbed the "crack cocaine" of gambling by critics.[7][8] In response to this criticism, in 2014 bookmakers represented by the Association of British Bookmakers introduced the facility for customers to set time and money limits when using FOBTs.[9] In October 2017, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport began studying the possibility of reducing the £100 maximum bet limit[10] and a decision was made in May 2018 to limit the maximum bet to £2.[11] This new maximum bet limit came into effect on 1 April 2019. Multiple bookmakers argued that the resultant loss of revenue could force them to downsize their high street operations (with the industry estimating that 2,100 shops could be collectively closed): in July 2019, William Hill announced plans to close 700 shops, primarily citing the new regulation. MP Tracey Crouch countered these arguments, noting that industry statistics showed downward trends in revenue from physical betting shops in favour of online betting, even before the restriction came into effect.
UNQUOTE

however - I point out the comment about 'the crack cocaine of gambling' which is what I was commenting on
I was not, however, aware of the fact (apparently) that the odds are not as bad as the new media have given

but the concept that the EFFECT on problem gamblers - and potential problem gamblers - still remains

just show how complex this is - and how the big businesses use psychology to make profits

But thanks to the above poster for pointing out that impressions from media miss out some things in this case

but in a way if those odds are right this makes is morally even worse
in spite of the odds being kinda OK
they STILL con people into loosing massive amount of money using them

the gambling industry is seriously screwed up!!

You're welcome.

As you may have gathered, I do have some knowledge of the industry, having worked for a big player from 2005-2013 in a support role. Part of the reason I left was my discomfort with the effect that fobt machines were having.

I supported the reduction of the stakes and the frequency of betting on fobt machines. However, I think that the legislation went too far, and that as often happens, a political "pile on" took place, and as a result the reduction in stakes went too far. There was a sweet spot at about £10 max stake which would have protected bettors and also jobs, but it was missed, I'm afraid.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

I'm sure it was 'contrary to the design if the game'. Weasel words, he won the money fair and square.

Are you are saying I am using weasel words?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

So - as an ex programmer

you (BetFred) have a computer system that you commissioned - or designed
to you specification
and you tested - or were so irresponsible to implement without testing
and then implemented

and released to the public for them to use

and promised that you would get £x if them win

and then the YOUR software
that you designed - or commissioned
and you tested - or decided not to test
and that you implemented

is not your responsibility when it hands out a win that was not what you intended????????

Hmmmmmm

I wonder if they have checked every loosing spin and checked if the software performed correctly - or maybe some people should have won something - but some bug or other meant that they didn't
or do they only challenge and check when someone wins big

don;t bother replying - I think we all know the answer


I seem to remember that when I implemented a program on a computer (which this is) and it produced 'unintended results for the customers - the company took the hit - and the customer wither gained or was not affected
of course - if I did the programming there was never a fault

comes down to the morality of the company

 

[Bonefish Blues]

So - as an ex programmer

you (BetFred) have a computer system that you commissioned - or designed
to you specification
and you tested - or were so irresponsible to implement without testing
and then implemented

and released to the public for them to use

and promised that you would get £x if them win

and then the YOUR software
that you designed - or commissioned
and you tested - or decided not to test
and that you implemented

is not your responsibility when it hands out a win that was not what you intended????????

Hmmmmmm

I wonder if they have checked every loosing spin and checked if the software performed correctly - or maybe some people should have won something - but some bug or other meant that they didn't
or do they only challenge and check when someone wins big

don;t bother replying - I think we all know the answer


I seem to remember that when I implemented a program on a computer (which this is) and it produced 'unintended results for the customers - the company took the hit - and the customer wither gained or was not affected
of course - if I did the programming there was never a fault

comes down to the morality of the company

I expect that they will now recover from the supplier who c*cked up their code.

I'm sure that BetFred tested the product they bought. We both also know that UAT covering every permutation is impossible with what are complex products. Unfortunately one party got lucky and one got unlucky and the fault was discovered. The bettor won money beyond what he had expected. He did nothing wrong. Nor did BetFred who have an expectation that a product will be delivered which meets the requirements outlined in the contract.

If it's okay with you I will answer a point you made. It's notable that it was the game supplier who seems to have confessed to the fault, presumably when Fred Done asked them what the actual f is going on such that a bettor won £1.7m on a (say) .5m maximum win game. A lucky man indeed, and doubly lucky that the terms were badly written and thus unenforceable.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I expect that they will now recover from the supplier who c*cked up their code.

I'm sure that BetFred tested the product they bought. We both also know that UAT covering every permutation is impossible with what are complex products. Unfortunately one party got lucky and one got unlucky and the fault was discovered. The bettor won money beyond what he had expected. He did nothing wrong. Nor did BetFred who have an expectation that a product will be delivered which meets the requirements outlined in the contract.

If it's okay with you I will answer a point you made. It's notable that it was the game supplier who seems to have confessed to the fault, presumably when Fred Done asked them what the actual f is going on such that a bettor won £1.7m on a (say) .5m maximum win game. A lucky man indeed, and doubly lucky that the terms were badly written and thus unenforceable.

Agreed - but if the computer system was implemented by e.g. Betfred then they are - morally at least - responsible for the results
and if the system does not perform as expected - as defined in their contract with the supplier - then it is down to them to claim recompense from their supplier

e.g. when I worked in a school - the school uniform supplier changed
turned out than when the new jumpers were washed they faded dramatically - from red to pink - and then more after 2nd and 3rd wash
the shop took responsibility and replaced the jumpers
and sued the suppliers for supplying substandard jumpers
the suppliers caved immediately and supplied replacement jumpers at no cost to the parents
and the parents got to keep the old jumpers if they wanted to

Ok - a few quid and not £1.7 million - but the morals are the same

 

[CanucksTraveller]

I appear to be an odd statistical anomaly who only occasionally bets, sees the money as an entertainment fee, doesn't expect to ever see it again, and yet never seems to exactly win or lose at gambling. I probably bet 4 times a year and always come out even. I do the grand national and pick 2 horses each way, costs me about 20 quid and I always seem to get about 20 back.

I once bought 200 dollars of chips to sit at a lower end (5 bucks stake) blackjack table in Las Vegas, hoping it would last me a couple of hours maybe. I saw that 200 as my entertainment money for the evening, so no expectation of keeping it. Just my entry fee for a once in a lifetime experience of pretending to be something I'm not.
I walked back to my room 4 hours later, blind drunk, with precisely 200 dollars of chips in my pocket.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

I appear to be an odd statistical anomaly who only occasionally bets, sees the money as an entertainment fee, doesn't expect to ever see it again, and yet never seems to exactly win or lose at gambling. I probably bet 4 times a year and always come out even. I do the grand national and pick 2 horses each way, costs me about 20 quid and I always seem to get about 20 back.

I once bought 200 dollars of chips to sit at a lower end (5 bucks stake) blackjack table in Las Vegas, hoping it would last me a couple of hours maybe. I saw that 200 as my entertainment money for the evening, so no expectation of keeping it. Just my entry fee for a once in a lifetime experience of pretending to be something I'm not.
I walked back to my room 4 hours later, blind drunk, with precisely 200 dollars of chips in my pocket.

It's people like you that give the betting industry a bad good name

...and you're very much in the majority, I assure you!

 

[Dan77]

Fred is definitely one of the better ones. A gentleman.

My simplistic view, however, is that if their software did indeed have a glitch leading to the punter winning a huge amount then that should be their problem. The fact it's a 3rd party that supplies the software is largely irrelevant. If you buy something from a shop and it's faulty then you sort it out with the shop and it's their responsibility to deal with their own suppliers. The punter plays with good faith and the result should stand. If there was a glitch causing punters to lose it would either never be spotted or if it was, most likely kept quiet. The punter doesn't get to examine the code when they lose to look for a mistake.

One proviso I think that would be fair is if the game clearly stated a maximum win amount (like the national lottery games do). If you win over the maximum and it's clearly shown as a maximum win then it's completely reasonable to only pay out the maximum. Bookies have maximum payouts in their terms anyway when it comes to betting - usually around £1m.

If there were a case where lots of people are awarded a jackpot in error then this may also need to be handled differently (perhaps divided among them?). It's a difficult one but it would be a pretty obvious mistake in those circumstances. No idea if it's ever happened though.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Agreed - but if the computer system was implemented by e.g. Betfred then they are - morally at least - responsible for the results
and if the system does not perform as expected - as defined in their contract with the supplier - then it is down to them to claim recompense from their supplier

e.g. when I worked in a school - the school uniform supplier changed
turned out than when the new jumpers were washed they faded dramatically - from red to pink - and then more after 2nd and 3rd wash
the shop took responsibility and replaced the jumpers
and sued the suppliers for supplying substandard jumpers
the suppliers caved immediately and supplied replacement jumpers at no cost to the parents
and the parents got to keep the old jumpers if they wanted to

Ok - a few quid and not £1.7 million - but the morals are the same

If this glitch awarded a prize of say £50 Billion, I am sure the Court would not have awarded the sum even if the same faulty terms and conditions exist. I think the company did not want to appeal to avoid further negative publicity.

Anyway, I am not in favour of gambling. The high % of returns per £1 waged is misleading. The way gambling works is that most clients will lose most of the time.The pooled losses then goes to a lucky client and a small % goes to the house. That small % going to the house adds up due to millions waged. No matter what, the house get that small % each and every time. This is where the issue of morality lies.