Remove this Banner Ad

Really Ox

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Interesting. If I didn't know of him I would think 100% clubs australia were behind this. It sounds like an advertorial, but I'd doubt it with someone in his situation. Where did you find the video?

Edit: Just read the hun article saying he's been 'recruited' by Clubs Australia. Whatever your stance on it is, he just lost credibility.
 
Really disappointed in the Ox. I work in the industry, and will admit there was a stage where I was betting far more than I was earning, but that's an aside.

What Ox fails to grasp is that the legislation isn't directed at just the chronic gambling addicts who'll stop at nothing to have a punt. I'd say a majority of punters go in with the intention of only spending x amount of dollars. But the biggest catch for most punters is chasing their losses. This law is designed to prevent this. Even if it only assists a small percentage of people from losing more than they can afford, it's done it's job.

Fair chance that this is a paid advertisement.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

dee64 said:
Really disappointed in the Ox. I work in the industry, and will admit there was a stage where I was betting far more than I was earning, but that's an aside.

What Ox fails to grasp is that the legislation isn't directed at just the chronic gambling addicts who'll stop at nothing to have a punt. I'd say a majority of punters go in with the intention of only spending x amount of dollars. But the biggest catch for most punters is chasing their losses. This law is designed to prevent this. Even if it only assists a small percentage of people from losing more than they can afford, it's done it's job.

Fair chance that this is a paid advertisement.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. I just posted the video and then wanted to wait for others to comment. As you said:

1. For a former gambling addict to be paid by clubs NSW just doesn't make sense no matter what he's arguing.

2. He's completely skipped the point that this will probably have some kind of impact on people before they slip into the real problem stage. He's dead right that it will do nothing for those who are that desperate and of course like all addicts the only thing that will stop them is themselves when they reach their rock bottom But he has made no mention of what it will do for the guy who gets a reminder after losing $500 and does stop and think about what he's doing and his chancing of winning that money back in a pokie machine.
 
He's been getting paid by Bruce Mathieson for years hasn't he? After being the "Responsible Gaming Ambassador" for the biggest pokie operator in town this is obviously the next logical step in totally selling out.
 
Syrus said:
I wonder how much did he get paid for saying what he thought. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What he says is absolutely spot-on, walk a mile in his shoes and you might have some idea. I work in drug and alcohol as a clinician, l also have personal experience with D&A problems, putting a limit on machines is just like a chronic addict or alcoholic trying to do controlled drinking or drugtaking, it just won't happen. If your a gambling addict you will bet on ANYTHING, not just bleedin' pokies. Think about it before you start slagging Schwarz off.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

unstable punt said:
What he says is absolutely spot-on, walk a mile in his shoes and you might have some idea. I work in drug and alcohol as a clinician, l also have personal experience with D&A problems, putting a limit on machines is just like a chronic addict or alcoholic trying to do controlled drinking or drugtaking, it just won't happen. If your a gambling addict you will bet on ANYTHING, not just bleedin' pokies. Think about it before you start slagging Schwarz off.
Click to expand...
Your comments are as ill-conceived as The Ox. Working with D & A is a totally different issue to gambling, because one is a substance and the other is not.

The idea of this law is to prevent people from spending more than they should. A very small percentage of those may then find other outlets to gamble, but the law is designed to prevent the vast majority from becoming chronic gamblers like Schwarz was. It's not designed to heal the chronic gamblers. It's a law designed at prevention.

I will confess that I once had a problem with internet gambling, and it all stemmed from having ready access to cash, ie; my credit card. I was able to transfer money directly from my credit card into my betting accounts instantaneously. If a law was brought in that prevented bank accounts being linked to betting accounts, I wouldn't have had the problem, because I never had the urge to bet in a Tab, or the pokies or go to the casino. The only cure for me was to close my credit card. I can still transfer money into my betting account from my bank account via bpay, but because it's not instantaneous, I don't do it.
 
It's meant to be a circuit breaker so that people can hit a limit and then have to think about what they're doing. If they're the type of people who go straight out the door and into the TAB then they're in another category but if it helps 10/20% of gaming addicts at the expense of pokie owners and those who rely on them then good.
 
I think people are overreacting regarding Schwarz' comments. He has spoken from a certain place that is biased towards his own experiences and circumstances. No, he hasn't considered it from all sides, but is it really that important that he hasn't? There are plenty of people chiming in from various standpoints. It's keeping the discussion going so that's a good thing. The decisions that are made will be the result of many different viewpoints from many different people. It really isn't important if one man hasn't constructed a complete and thorough argument. At the very least he has highlighted that seriously addicted gamblers need something else in place over and beyond the gambling limit idea.

I would like somebody to point me towards some evidence that Schwarz is in the pocket of Clubs Australia. I find that hard to believe, given his stance on gambling.
 
Ando727 said:
I think people are overreacting regarding Schwarz' comments. He has spoken from a certain place that is biased towards his own experiences and circumstances. No, he hasn't considered it from all sides, but is it really that important that he hasn't? There are plenty of people chiming in from various standpoints. It's keeping the discussion going so that's a good thing. The decisions that are made will be the result of many different viewpoints from many different people. It really isn't important if one man hasn't constructed a complete and thorough argument. At the very least he has highlighted that seriously addicted gamblers need something else in place over and beyond the gambling limit idea.

I would like somebody to point me towards some evidence that Schwarz is in the pocket of Clubs Australia. I find that hard to believe, given his stance on gambling.
Click to expand...
The video is posted by ClubsNSW, if he's doing it for free then that makes it slightly better but I doubt it is. I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with it, for me it reeks of hypocrisy. It's like a gay man coming out and speaking in a church video against gay marriage.
 
dee64 said:
Your comments are as ill-conceived as The Ox. Working with D & A is a totally different issue to gambling, because one is a substance and the other is not.

The idea of this law is to prevent people from spending more than they should. A very small percentage of those may then find other outlets to gamble, but the law is designed to prevent the vast majority from becoming chronic gamblers like Schwarz was. It's not designed to heal the chronic gamblers. It's a law designed at prevention.

I will confess that I once had a problem with internet gambling, and it all stemmed from having ready access to cash, ie; my credit card. I was able to transfer money directly from my credit card into my betting accounts instantaneously. If a law was brought in that prevented bank accounts being linked to betting accounts, I wouldn't have had the problem, because I never had the urge to bet in a Tab, or the pokies or go to the casino. The only cure for me was to close my credit card. I can still transfer money into my betting account from my bank account via bpay, but because it's not instantaneous, I don't do it.
Click to expand...

You do not know what you are talking about, I have studied all additions and gambling is exactly the same as substance abuse. It's all about endorphins and the escapism you get from substance abuse or gambling.
You had a small problem with internet gambling and think your an expert, get your arse down to an AA, NA or GA meeting and just see how similar they are. You try to tell me, who has a lifetime experience with addictions that I don't know anything, your an ignorant fool.
If you want to abuse substance you will, if you want to gamble you will, nothing and I mean absolutely NOTHING will stop you. You heard Ox say he bet on ****-fighting in Thailand, that's an addict, not someone who blows a $100 on the internet.
 
master bate said:
The video is posted by ClubsNSW, if he's doing it for free then that makes it slightly better but I doubt it is. I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with it, for me it reeks of hypocrisy. It's like a gay man coming out and speaking in a church video against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me the ignorance of 80% of the general public. The only way people learn about addictions is to become one themselves or have a close family member or friend start stealing off them and lying to them. Then and only then does the lightbulb switch-on.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

^^^^ I wonder if the card was for the responses above...clearly losing it to strangers on the 'net, for good or bad reasons, is a poor way to spend your time.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Headless
Games Things you're really good at
Replies
7
Views
186
Headless
Headless

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom