Gambling Commission questioning the legality SWP's

6502 · Post by **6502** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:52 am

Could lead to some interesting times !!

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/Content ... x?id=22003

cp999 · Post by **cp999** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:59 am

Food for thought for Games Warehouse, methinks.

"skill games.. designed to look like games of chance"

What about games of chance designed to look like games of skill? I would have thought that was a more pertinent query, though that may be covered by the penultimate paragraph of the pdf.

Istenem · Post by **Istenem** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:50 pm

i can't get at the pdf. would someone who can pls reconfigure it and post it on here? it looks like interesting reading.

quizard · Post by **quizard** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:58 pm

Istenem wrote:i can't get at the pdf. would someone who can pls reconfigure it and post it on here? it looks like interesting reading.

You have got Adobe reader installed?

GAMBLING COMMISSION

Leslie Macleod-Miller
BACTA
Alders House
133 Aldersgate Street
London
EC1A 4JA

13 July 2009

Dear Leslie

Skill with Prizes machines

As you are aware, the Gambling Commission (the Commission) has been reviewing recent developments with respect to skill with prizes machines (SWPs) in order to ascertain whether or not some games described as SWPs are in fact gaming machines as defined in the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act). This is in line with our commitment in my letter to you of 17 November 2007 to keep the issue under consideration in the light of developments.

I am writing now to let you know that the Commission is of the view that ‘skill games’ which are designed to look like recognised games of chance (such as roulette or bingo) are being presented as involving an element of chance and are therefore games of chance according to section 6 (2)(a)(iii) of the Act.

Such machines are subject to all the regulations and controls which apply to gaming machines, for example in relation to supply, location, numbers, stakes and prizes and technical standards. In this respect, we believe at least some machines are being illegally sited and operated. We are contacting the manufacturers of such machines.

In addition, and in the light of what BACTA has told us, the Commission has also developed grounds for concern regarding the compensation or control mechanism used in some types of machines. In particular whether in reality the compensation or control mechanism operates in such a way that it introduces an element of chance into the way the game is played, at least on some occasions. If so, the machines are gaming machines as defined by section 6(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

More widely, we would like to work with the industry (including BACTA), HMRC and others to develop a list of characteristics exhibited by genuine SWP machines to provide the industry, regulators and the public with greater clarity about the status of individual machines. We will be in touch in due course with our initial thoughts on such a list.

Yours sincerely

James Holdaway

Policy Programme Manager

Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham B2 4BP

T 0121 230 6666

F 0121 230 6720

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk

LET 09/05

ob · Post by ob » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:11 pm

What he doesn't understand re:compensation is that if there is no "compensation" or target payout, ie. so it will be much harder to win if it's recently paid, then the games would in effect have to play the same difficulty every game regardless of wins:

This would lead to either:

a) The very good players could win almost every game, so they would be emptied all the time.

b) No one could ever win as they would be too hard for anyone.

There has to be a level of compensation, and that by rights introduces chance, as to how "ready" the machine is when you get on it. Can someone think of a game that could be made which doesn't use compensation and wouldn't lead to my a) or b) situations.

I doubt anything will be done re: compensation, I think the main issue is those roulette things in arcades which say skill roulette with a £500 jackpot.

Istenem · Post by **Istenem** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:11 pm

cheers Quizard. dunno why i can't open some pdfs. might be something to do with the set-up on my apple laptop. but thanks for posting that. let's see what the outcomes will be...

dmac · Post by **dmac** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:21 pm

cp999 · Post by **cp999** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:50 am

ob wrote:What he doesn't understand re:compensation is that if there is no "compensation" or target payout, ie. so it will be much harder to win if it's recently paid, then the games would in effect have to play the same difficulty every game regardless of wins:

This would lead to either:

a) The very good players could win almost every game, so they would be emptied all the time.

b) No one could ever win as they would be too hard for anyone.

a) probably

dmac wrote: I think you could argue that if the best players can make a profit from a particular game over time then that is enough to describe that game as skill.

That's a fair enough comment - but it implies (rightly, imo) that fruit machines can also be described as skill games, rather than AWPs. Also, it's a definition which won't help the Gambling Commission.. I have visions of them learning games to evaluate how much skill is contained in them

The whole area is a semantic minefield.

mr lugsy · Post by **mr lugsy** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 12:26 pm

after just reading that i hve had visions of the commission becoming self funding,expect site inspections to rise sharply,and machines to be emptied with impunity.

dmac · Post by **dmac** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:03 pm

BigEd · Post by **BigEd** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:01 pm

dmac wrote:This piece of junk is perhaps more what they have in mind.

http://www.questgaming.co.uk/1.html

http://www.questgaming.co.uk/7.html

Please insert your text here.

You = out of business?

Barry Trotter · Post by **Barry Trotter** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:45 pm

I think we'll see the end of poker, roulette, bingo, blackjack and other games like this, whether they involve skill or not.a

Which is a shame, as i'm quite partial to a bit of Texas Hold 'Em

Hopefully that shameful Quest game will disappear up its own arse where it deserves it be. And we can get back to having some proper skill games!!

sausagefingaz · Post by **sausagefingaz** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:48 am

I had assumed those skill quest garbage boxes had already been ruled 'naughty' as the five or sixish i know of have all been turned off for a month or so now.

mr lugsy · Post by **mr lugsy** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:37 am

emptied more likely.

grecian · Post by **grecian** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:39 am

Interesting stuff, and no doubt a bit of a "squeaky bottom" period for the industry coming up, as Sir Alex Ferguson might put it. I've no problems with the regulator throwing the book at some of the "amusement"-style games appearing on "skill" terminals (poker, blackjack, cash stacker, etc. etc.), but I completely agree with ob's comments on the paragraph they slip in about compensator mechanisms - I think they risk destroying the industry if they interfere too much there, to be quite honest. The compensator is obviously fundamental to the finances of SWPs and I think all but the least experienced players realise that the difficulty of the game will to a large extent depend on previous payouts. To change that could only lead to one of the routes ob describes, neither of which would be any good for the Joe Public punter.