Pre-commitment scheme

Discuss and debate the latest hot topics in gambling politics and media.

RE: Pre-commitment scheme

Postby doug » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:16 pm

hi..

i had/have mixed emotions about it.. i guess one thought i have Assumed is that gamblers don't like restrictions. Sorta like the smoking issues.

The second thought is that i might slow down how fast i lose money, but still not fix my problem.

As far as the government, i don't have a whole lot of fair in them being able to handle problem.

but i think the goverment is trying to put some support groups out there, which i am very grateful for.

i have just started taking advantage of that area.

and i have found this site and others to be very nice, sincere and wanting to help.

so that is a positive.
Doug who's the good dog?
User avatar
doug
Senior Member
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:51 pm
Location: WORRIGEE

RE: Pre-commitment scheme

Postby Bull » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:30 pm

Nicki (10/01/2013)I don't know about pre-committment. I have spent my life trying NOT to go to venues. Why would I want to commit to going to them????


I'm pretty sure per-commitment is about committing how much MONEY you are going to spend when you go there. It's aimed at controlling your gambling, not stopping you from going .
User avatar
Bull
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:53 pm

RE: Pre-commitment scheme

Postby Nicki » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:39 pm

I don't know about pre-committment. I have spent my life trying NOT to go to venues. Why would I want to commit to going to them????
User avatar
Nicki
Junior Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:30 pm

RE: Pre-commitment scheme

Postby RobL » Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:42 pm

Precommittment, if only the government woke up and realised how much gambling is costing the health and legal sector they might actually realise that by reducing spending on gambling they are saving bucket loads of money elsewhere!
RobL
Junior Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:57 pm

RE: Pre-commitment scheme

Postby Bull » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:25 pm

Yeh I definitely agree the government has a responsibility to doing this. If the research shows that precommitment work (preliminary reports do) then the government must act on it. Take the government's tactic on plane packet cigarette smoking... They realised that this may work following good evidence and they put it into effect immediately. They would never do that to gambling because they make too much money off it. It's pathetic really.

At least the removal of ATMs has had some impact on reducing pokie spending...
User avatar
Bull
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:53 pm

RE: Pre-commitment scheme

Postby Chris2 » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:19 pm

Hi I agree totally with pre committment because not everyone who gambles will do it straight away nor has a problem but it is an option for those who are handling or realising that a problem is/has developed. An option which if it was available the first time I lost my thousands I would have taken advantage of to help control my urge to spend more. Having tried reducing atm withdrawals this didnt work because I had control over manipulating my finances online and/or changing again my withdrawal limits etc. When you are out of control and in the zone all logic goes out the door. Pre committment as I understand being that I pre commit to what i can spend and then not able to play more is a better option because it is the machine cutting ME off. I think they have a responsibility to do this.
Chris2
Junior Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:27 pm

Pre-commitment scheme

Postby Bull » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:41 am

I thought it might be a good idea to kick off discussion in this forum with a topic on the most hotly contested issue in gambling reform at the moment - mandatory pre-commitment.

As you may be aware, Andrew Wilke had a deal with the Gillard Government that all poker machines would have mandatory pre-commitment by 2016. That deal has since been revoked, with Gillard stating that a trial in the ACT is needed before this can go ahead. Unhappy with this move, the Victorian Government has since passed laws requiring that venues have voluntary pre-commitment options on all machines in the next few years in VIC.

It seems that policy makers cannot make up their minds on whether or not pre-commitment is the way forward. Industry is generally against it because they are affraid that poker machine revenue will substantially decrease, placing a lot of stress on venues and business owners to generate the revenue elsewhere.

What are your thoughts?

cron