Yes, I am very sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_odds_betting_terminal

Buying Pokemon cards in the hope of getting a specific rare one is a pretty niche form of addiction. Compared to walking into a shop, putting in £100 and getting nothing back, then another £100, then another, in the hope of getting £500... it's a lot more accessible, and can easily wipe out your life savings.

Perhaps it's like arguing "which is more lethal, a gun or a screwdriver?", and you're arguing on a technicality that if you're really persistent then they're equally lethal as you can get the job done with a screwdriver, but you're overlooking how much easier the gun makes it.

▲

sidewndr46 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Isn't this Fixed odds betting terminal how most slots work in North America as well? I'm aware of a few places where it isn't required. But the reality is if your RTP is something like 10%, not many people are coming by that often

	▲	amiga386 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		A fixed-odds betting terminal is a type of slot machine. But unlike other categories of slot machine, it was (at one time) allowed a maximum bet of £100 and a maximum payout of £500. The RTP was around 95%, but allowing such a large maximum bet meant you could easily lose a lot of money, very quickly. In 2019, the regulations changed to make the maximum bet £2 (50 times lower), in line with most other slot machines. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/authorities/guide/page...

▲

nottorp 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And having a smaller addiction rate makes it any more moral?

▲

amiga386 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, it does. Only Sith deal in absolutes. You can say the same about, let's say alcohol. For most it's an entertaining social lubricant. For a much smaller number, it leads them to wreck and ruin. Is it therefore a wicked evil sin that no God-fearing person should engage in, and I'm going to ban it to protect the morality of society?

The USA tried that out with Prohibition, and only after years of misery and gangsters taking up power did they realise their mistake. Moral absolutism doesn't work, problem management does.

Per the Gambling Commission in their call for evidence from a few years ago:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-the-gam...

> Gambling is a popular leisure pursuit in Britain. Last year, 47% of adults surveyed had taken part in at least one form of gambling in the previous four weeks [...] Gambling can be entertaining and sociable, and enhance enjoyment of other activities, and the vast majority of gamblers take part without suffering even low levels of harm. [...]

> However, gambling does come with risks, and problem gambling can ruin lives, wreck families, and damage communities [...] approximately 0.5% of the adult population are problem gamblers [...] this rate has remained broadly steady around or below 1% for the past 20 years and now equates to about 300,000 individuals whose gambling is also likely to cause harm to those around them

> This Review seeks to ensure that people can continue to gamble but that the legislation and regulation we have in place addresses as many factors as possible to give the necessary safeguards [...]

Evidence tells you plainly that different forms of gambling are not equal, and don't have the same power to trigger problem gambling in individuals. Coin pushers at seaside amusement parks with a maximum "bet" of 10p are not in the same league as fixed-odds roulette in a run-down high street with a £100 maximum bet. Lootboxes have some level of risk of causing harm, but not that level of risk.

	▲	xg15 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's all well and good, but then why introduce gambling-like mechanisms (with real money) in new areas where people have not been looking for them, like lootboxes in games or randomized trading cards? It's a bit as if ice cream shops suddenly decided "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we put alcohol into most of our sorts? It's just tiny amounts and alcohol-laced sweets have a long history already, so what's the harm?"