The Laws/Price/Singleton/Carr/2GB/2UE/Jones Show(Important!)

[Moffo]

Actually Syphon, your talking to someone that is just about to complete a business degree. So for starters, you can stick your elitist approach up your arse

:lol: You mean as opposed to University elitism?
No offence Moffo... but that really cracked me up.
btw congrats on nearing the finish of your business degree.

WIllow, i was simply highlighting that he is not the only one who can be elitist.

In fact, i think i out-elitistist him!!!!

Cheers mate, in the last sem now, still yet to fail :lol: Although tax law may change all that lol

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[syphon]

have you never read what bob carr said in relation to the way the tax will be redirected?

i thought not. he has claimed it will be revenue neutral. you still have not fathomed the idea. i shudder to think where your business degree is leading if you think schooners will still be $2.30. clubs are basically funded of poker machines as it is, after the tax, the club will have to make profits via other means, as opposed to having all the grog subsidised.

shame your doing a business degree but still cant fathom how increasing taxes on machine to the point where they lose money will not affect gambling :lol:

poker machines have a 3% return. for every $1000 put in them, the chances are you will lose $970 and the clubs make $30.

the tax is something like 3.5 - 4% of turnover.

thus for every $1000 put in the machine, $40 is paid in tax. a net loss for the clubs of $10.



for someone who claims they are doing a business degree (which sounds far fetched btw) you dont have much of an idea how implementaion of tax is likely to affect the clubs.

what is the name of the course you are doing exactly?

 

[syphon]

Actually Syphon, your talking to someone that is just about to complete a business degree. So for starters, you can stick your elitist approach up your arse

:lol: You mean as opposed to University elitism?
No offence Moffo... but that really cracked me up.
btw congrats on nearing the finish of your business degree.

WIllow, i was simply highlighting that he is not the only one who can be elitist.

In fact, i think i out-elitistist him!!!!

Cheers mate, in the last sem now, still yet to fail :lol: Although tax law may change all that lol

Cheers,
Moffo

your post was utter garbage and proved nothing.. you managed to try and invalidate what i was saying by not knowing the facts and not contributing anything of your own, and tried to drum up your own credibility by claiming to be in university, as opposed to posting any real facts. :roll:

fail tax law? surely not... you had me fooled into thinking you knew about tax related issues... fairly ironic?

 

[Moffo]

Goose

So your saying the clubs will make a loss on poker machines if the tax went in? If that happened, every club in Sydney would go broke

They won't lose money out of poker machines with the increased tax.

It'll be redircted to hospitals. So what???

"poker machines have a 3% return. for every $1000 put in them, the chances are you will lose $970 and the clubs make $30"

Sorry mate, but your an idiot. Poker machines don't have a set return. The payout level of a machine can be determined (within reason) by the club

I really couldn't care whether you think im doing a business degree or not. I can't believe you have figured out how to turn a computer on actually!

But just FYI oh learned one, its a bachelor of business

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[Moffo]

In fact, im convinced that you doesn't understand poker machines

Poker Machines offer back between 80-90% of money put in. That is a fact. So if a player wins a jackpot but then plays it back down to zero without taking it out, then the club would keep all the money. In theory, a club could have a machine that never has money taken out of it by the player. So how can they have a set return?

You obviously don't understand poker machines.

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[syphon]

Goose

So your saying the clubs will make a loss on poker machines if the tax went in? If that happened, every club in Sydney would go broke

They won't lose money out of poker machines with the increased tax.

It'll be redircted to hospitals. So what???

"poker machines have a 3% return. for every $1000 put in them, the chances are you will lose $970 and the clubs make $30"

Sorry mate, but your an idiot. Poker machines don't have a set return. The payout level of a machine can be determined (within reason) by the club

I really couldn't care whether you think im doing a business degree or not. I can't believe you have figured out how to turn a computer on actually!

But just FYI oh learned one, its a bachelor of business

Cheers,
Moffo

the 3% is used as an example.... basically to spell out for you how in simpleton terms the tax will operate.

and are you planning to start up a business of your own? if so, would you still be sticking with things that are going to lose you money or directing revenue streams from elsewhere (such as meals / gyms etc).

i think you have ingrained youself with the idea that clubs will keep the same number of poker machines, which is extremely naive. it's all very easy to sit up on your pedastool and sprout on about your university degree, but i think your claims about me not being able to turn on a computer are a result of the building frustration you are getting. this tax is going through, and carr will win the next election (testament to this fact he is still thrashing brogden in opinion polls, and would be a preferred PM to simon crean)

 

[syphon]

In fact, im convinced that you doesn't understand poker machines

Poker Machines offer back between 80-90% of money put in. That is a fact. So if a player wins a jackpot but then plays it back down to zero without taking it out, then the club would keep all the money. In theory, a club could have a machine that never has money taken out of it by the player. So how can they have a set return?

You obviously don't understand poker machines.

Cheers,
Moffo

:roll: you obviously dont understand probability, the very fundamental principle on which poker macines operate.

you'd probably use the same mantra when playing roulette. % returns are long run figures, based on probabilities. and its all well and good to say in theory... but after 10000000000 spins, 3-4% of the money you put in, you lose.

and its nowhere near 80-90% much closer to 96-97%

 

[Moffo]

You are being proven wrong and changing topic. Good form

Are you still telling me that once the tax goes in, a pokie machine will lose money for the club? :lol: Mate, here is an idea, email Roger Cowan tomorrow morning and ask him if he his pokie machines will lose money once the tax goes in.

Clubs want more machines in their clubs, not less. They are capped at the moment, hence the big wrangles between clubs and the gov't as we stand in 2003.

Just a question, how confident are you that it will go through? What stage is the bill at?

I don't care much for politics and i don't care if Carr or Brogden or Crazy John is the premier.

And FYI, i didn't sprout on about a degree, you came into this argument claiming that i had no idea about economics and was a simpleton. You want to start throwing around wild claims? Thats fine, but do expect me to fire back. I expected my uni comment to be picked up on straight away, it humoured me to see that you did so quickly however. Most people on this forum know that i don't take myself seriously, so you can give up on the notion that you may think that im elitist :lol:

Truth be known, im a westie made good :lol: I've fought hard, long and many times to get where i am, as an internet poster fighting the evil forces of those who claim that pokie machines would make a loss once the new tax comes in :lol:

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[Moffo]

In fact, im convinced that you doesn't understand poker machines

Poker Machines offer back between 80-90% of money put in. That is a fact. So if a player wins a jackpot but then plays it back down to zero without taking it out, then the club would keep all the money. In theory, a club could have a machine that never has money taken out of it by the player. So how can they have a set return?

You obviously don't understand poker machines.

Cheers,
Moffo

:roll: you obviously dont understand probability, the very fundamental principle on which poker macines operate.

you'd probably use the same mantra when playing roulette. % returns are long run figures, based on probabilities. and its all well and good to say in theory... but after 10000000000 spins, 3-4% of the money you put in, you lose.

and its nowhere near 80-90% much closer to 96-97%

Syphon, i know for a fact that in general, a pokie machine must pay out in the vicinity of 80-85% of all money put in. The exact amount is at the discretion of the club. I think you will find that during certain times, the club will jack up the payout rate and at other times reduce it. Its not a constant figure, i can 100% assure you of that

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[El Diablo]

And some poker machines have to pay out more than others. I know $1 pokies used to have to pay out a higher percentage than say 20cent ones. Buggered if I know why.

 

[Moffo]

The funny thing is, Syphon, you keep coming out and saying that i don't understand economics, probability, tax etc etc....yet then you come out and make ludicrous comments!!

Full marks for humour value though :lol:

El, might just be club policy? Perhaps they work on an idea that certain machines are more popular so they will pay out a higher ratio in the knowledge that they will be played more then other ones. At the end of the day, both machines might net out at the same profit for the club

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[iggy plop]

I found it pretty un-professional the way John Laws went about it......that's just my opinion.....i wonder if i could go on his show and say "piss-weak" without being cut off......

I'd the Laws call was a struggling radio station trying to drum up a bit of publicity. I can't see why he'd otherwise ring, although he does piss in the pocket of certain types and they do likewise back to him.

I feel sorry for 2UE.

I rate Price highly, Laws is a an outdated fossil.

 

[iggy plop]

the harsh fact of the matter is, Carr will romp it in the next election. Far more people are concerned about lowering the incidence of addictive gambling, and directing revenue towards hospitals and schooling, as opposed to sustaining elite NRL players wages.

crawl back in your AFL hole you shite stirring troll.

 

[iggy plop]

The bottom line is that if the state Gov were really concerned with gambling they would ensure the reduction of the number of poker machines. Forget the spin Carr and he mates would like to put on it. Oh and that aussie rules troll as well.

 

[skeepe]

The funny thing is, Syphon, you keep coming out and saying that i don't understand economics, probability, tax etc etc....yet then you come out and make ludicrous comments!!

Checkmate! :lol:

 

[incredible_holc]

the funniest bit was

have you never read what bob carr said in relation to the way the tax will be redirected?

i thought not.

you could atleast give him a chance you wanker. Your on the back foot now

 

[millersnose]

i note this morning singleton isnt accusing carr of threatening to have him shut down

and carr still maintains the threat was made by singleton of the add campaign to smear him

based on this it would be easy to conclude carr made no such threat and singleton did

that is why carr outed him

the clubs side is loosing credibility

 

[JoeD]

poker machines have a 3% return. for every $1000 put in them, the chances are you will lose $970 and the clubs make $30.

Don't know how relevant this is but the above quote is wrong. Casino pokies in NZ are set to a 3% take. That means for every $1000 a punter puts in the casino takes $30 and gives you back $970. You do not lose $970.

Personally I am against pokies. Like I said in the four corners forum I think they are a plague on society. If these clubs can't survive without them then they don't deserve to be there.

 

[grayham]

In fact, im convinced that you doesn't understand poker machines

Poker Machines offer back between 80-90% of money put in. That is a fact. So if a player wins a jackpot but then plays it back down to zero without taking it out, then the club would keep all the money. In theory, a club could have a machine that never has money taken out of it by the player. So how can they have a set return?

You obviously don't understand poker machines.

Poker machines have around 20% cut of your "action". Which is completely different to what you are saying.
Your "action" is the amount you bet over a period of time. Not the amount you put into the machine.
Eg for a 3 game sequence, where you put in $10, and bet $5 a go:
Game 1: Bet $5, win $0
Game 2: Bet $5, win $10
Game 3: Bet $5 win $0.
Even though it only cost you $10 to play, your action is $15, and the poker machine on average will take about $3 (20%) of that.
Which in effect is $3 from your $10 which is 30%!

I can never understand how anyone can support these things. They are a scurge on the landscape. The NRL would be a lot better off without relying on pokie money, as it would be able to expand into new markets with a sustainable economic model purely driven from football.

 

[Alan Shore]

In fact, im convinced that you doesn't understand poker machines

Poker Machines offer back between 80-90% of money put in. That is a fact. So if a player wins a jackpot but then plays it back down to zero without taking it out, then the club would keep all the money. In theory, a club could have a machine that never has money taken out of it by the player. So how can they have a set return?

You obviously don't understand poker machines.

Poker machines have around 20% cut of your "action". Which is completely different to what you are saying.
Your "action" is the amount you bet over a period of time. Not the amount you put into the machine.
Eg for a 3 game sequence, where you put in $10, and bet $5 a go:
Game 1: Bet $5, win $0
Game 2: Bet $5, win $10
Game 3: Bet $5 win $0.
Even though it only cost you $10 to play, your action is $15, and the poker machine on average will take about $3 (20%) of that.
Which in effect is $3 from your $10 which is 30%!

I can never understand how anyone can support these things. They are a scurge on the landscape. The NRL would be a lot better off without relying on pokie money, as it would be able to expand into new markets with a sustainable economic model purely driven from football.

Where do AFL clubs get their $$$ from?

Some RL clubs are trying to move away. The Dogs were involved in the infamous Oasis project at Liverpool. And since the pokies tax is coming in, perhaps Carr should tell the Land & Environment Court to shut up and let the Sharks Development Proposal through.