Look at the recent reports regarding high streets, empty units and the number of businesses that are closing shops/restaurants down at the moment. It's big numbers.

There is already more space available than those wishing to fill it and it's not just rent cost, which still won't come down drastically, as each time a unit changes leaseholder you have the setup costs.

Optimistic as ever

You could say the same about Pringles.

"I was only going to have a flutter on the nags and the next thing I know the £500 in cash I brought in was gone!"

Can anyone really claim that they didn't know the odds were loaded in the favour of the bookie, before they ever played one? That's the main crux of it for me.

And if you can't, then you can't really moan after playing them and losing.

Optimistic as ever

I don't care for anyone moaning that they didn't know the risks, when the risks are extremely well known, after they've lost. That's being deliberately obtuse, not me knowing how they work and why they're not a good idea to play in the first place if you want to get a return. Apportioning some of the blame on flashing lights and shiny graphics I just find laughable.

You never hear of a gambler that has won moaning that they didn't understand the potential outcome.

When they advertise the lottery they have the potential jackpot in big images plastered all over the advert, rather than saying it's more likely you'll lose any money you play with. What's the difference?

Optimistic as ever

I believe bookies are restricted to how many machine they are allowed per shop. I know someone who worked in a bookies about 10 years ago, she told me that each machine in her shop took 7k per day. The machines generate far more money then betting on horses and the dogs by punters.

The number of betting shops exploded after New Labour relaxed the rules around gambling. The bookies saw an opportunity to expand taking over empty shops. However like the high street banks the public are now doing their betting online (Football is the growth area) so there are too many shops. The bookies are trying to rectify this by merging with each other and slowly down sizing.

The cry of job losses is hypocrisy, these jobs and shops were already going now they have an excuse. I expect if the government hadn't changed the rules they would blame Brexit or England's world cup performance.

Anyway as a moderate gambler I am glad this has happened. What I would really like to see is the power given back to local councils to decide how many betting shops they should have in their area.

Edited by Badger11 (17 May 2018 6.03pm)

One more point

I didn't say they thought it was a one way bet, you'd have to be a f***tard to think gambling is guaranteeing winning. They are moaning purely and simply because they were daft enough to lose money, and to keep on doing it repeatedly. As I said, were they were winning all the time no one would be moaning.

They're more profitable and have less running costs, Badger has already explained your question regarding why they don't set up one shop, it's due to existing regulation.

On the flipside of your scenario. Were there no regulations on the number of FOBTs per shop, and they put say 20 of them into one shop, you would expect every single one of them to have a punter on them all day, every day, being as highly addictive as they are?

Optimistic as ever

Agreed, but don’t bother arguing with anyone who thinks they should remain. They won’t change their opinion and they might work in a bookies, although I’ve read a few bookie employees welcome it. Probably because they work in a bookies that once only had horse punters and they’d like it back that way, like a locals pub.

COYP