Victim? I don't agree. It's like calling a druggie a victim. The victims of such things are their family and friends. The people they con to keep their habits running, and their kids. You know who deserves a medal when a junkie becomes a functioning member of society again? The person that stood by them through the entire selfish episode and never gave up on them when everyone else did.

I'm tired of people making excuses for others who can't control themselves like the rest of us have too. Sure, I'll agree that it may be a chemical or genetic thing, but I love smoking. I'd love to smoke and I'd love to drink, but I can't because I know that both will end in disaster so I control those urges to buy smokes and go to the pub. Instead, I go to work and work mammoth hours for money so I can spoil my partner with holidays and a life together.

I'll support subsidised psychological help for those who need and want it. But don't expect me to applaud them when they pull themselves out of it. I'll applaud whoever stood beside them.

Sorry, won't happen.

>>Better to get politicians to even the odds so that there is an equal chance of the machine or player winning or losing the same amount on each push of the buttom.<<

Let me explain why.

Let's say that that to be legal, a pokie must be able to demonstrate, mathematically, that it operates on an "even money" basis. That is, over time it will deliver the full stake back to the punter.

Does that sound like the sort of legislation you had in mind?

If I were devising the computer program that runs such a machine, I would include a $1m jackpot payout (against a 20c stake) that mathematically "evens the odds", but in real life is most unlikely to pay out. A five million to one chance against, in fact. I would then insure my club against paying such a jackpot (insurance companies love odds of five million to one), and have myself a license to fleece.

To illustrate the point even further, that model above assumes that no other payouts are actually occurring between jackpots. If I set the machine to a level that in "normal play" gives the punter 87% return (and me my standard margin of 13%), the actual odds against the million dollar jackpot appearing would be absolutely astronomical. Certainly longer than the operational life of the machine.

Apart from being totally impractical, what else?

Oh, yes. As you said:

>>The incentive to put in poker machines would be removed because people installing them would risk big losses as well as big profits. Eventually the machines would probably go away<<

If by any chance you were able to pass legislation that avoided the scenario above, the machines would disappear instantly, not "eventually". If you eliminate the profit motive, there is no other rationale for club management to install and maintain them.

None at all.

So your "solution" is to cause them to disappear, overnight. Why not just come out with it, and say "they should be banned". Much more honest.

On the contrary, clubs provide many benefits for members that are not related to earning profits. Remember, clubs are owned by members, so any pokie losses by members belong to the members. There is no need for a profit motive in clubs at all. If there is, they should be income taxed on all their revenue.
The extreme example of a $1m jackpot is not constructive. A $250 jackpot would be better. The idea of the club knocking off 13% each time so that after 8 such runs it has taken all of the player's money is not a gamble.
I don't want them banned at all. I want them to be fair to players which they are not at present. Perhaps a warning on each machine showing how much players have lost historically on that machine would be a beter option.
Politicians seem much more interested in the idea of taxing gambling gains like capital gains, with gambling losses deductible against gambling winnings.
Still, it would be nice if people could continue playing the machines but win more and lose less. I think it is going to happen and that pollies will be delighted to pass such legislation.
Your thoughts are much appreciated. It is good to other views.

What do you think of the Draft National Gambling Reform Bill released on the 17/2/2012?