The Evil of Roulette Bandits (In Bookies)

[Ulysses]

Give me one rational reason why a bookie would need to fix a roulette machine in their favour (given the house edge which you cannot beat in the long run), and I'll concede.

 

Bookies are businesses. What does "need" have to do with anything? What you need is one rational reason why a bookie would want to fix a roulette machine in their favour. And the reason is obvious; to improve the 2.7% house edge to something more profitable.

[The Brow]

My mates been doing his brains in for the last few months on these machines.

 

Done in thousands.

 

I spoke to him about it to try and get him off them but doesn't seemed to have worked.

 

He has always liked a bet but does nothing now bar play these stupid machine.

 

To let you know how bad hes got.

 

One night he was playing and he was up ?400 quid.

 

Kept on playing till he lost the lot.

 

Skint !!

 

 

Mugs game.

 

 

 

 

Hes obviously a mug then. Need to let him hit the bottom, realise he's messed up (if he ever does) then see if you can help him after (obviously tell him to GTF if he tries to borrow money). Its hard to have any sympathy for him tho in much the same way it is to have sympathy for junkies and alchies.

[Acey]

Bookies are businesses. What does "need" have to do with anything? What you need is one rational reason why a bookie would want to fix a roulette machine in their favour. And the reason is obvious; to improve the 2.7% house edge to something more profitable.

 

No - that's like saying "I have a hen which lays golden eggs, but what I really want are two hens which lay golden eggs". Bookies make enough money utilising the standard 2.7% house edge (which, let's not forget, "allows" enough wins to keep mug punters coming back for more in the long term); they have far, far too much to lose by genuinely fixing the machines.

 

Besides you're assuming that bookies would be able to get away with it, which they definitely wouldn't. If they were found out (and they would be), they'd instantly lose over 40% of their profit. And no, I'm not making that statistic up!

[wibble]

The machine probably plays 5 or 6 spins in the time it takes to play 1 on a real table.

 

In an hour on the machine you will lose as much as you would in 5 hours at the casino.

 

Also, with the increased tempo, there is an increased ramp up of endorphins and the gambling high is increased. Once into a rythmn of punt, punt, punt - anyone with an inclination towards gambling addiction will be hooked monstrously.

 

Insidiously addictive when played by the wrong person and addictive enough to hook people who have otherwise resisted the gambling urge prior to playing these things.

 

No thought process required either, so will hook in anyone who finds a puggie too confusing.

[The Merse]

Sums it up perfectly.

 

Would you accept 10/11 on a coin toss?

 

Heads!

[rossi_1983]

The machine probably plays 5 or 6 spins in the time it takes to play 1 on a real table.

 

In an hour on the machine you will lose as much as you would in 5 hours at the casino.

 

Also, with the increased tempo, there is an increased ramp up of endorphins and the gambling high is increased. Once into a rythmn of punt, punt, punt - anyone with an inclination towards gambling addiction will be hooked monstrously.

 

Insidiously addictive when played by the wrong person and addictive enough to hook people who have otherwise resisted the gambling urge prior to playing these things.

 

No thought process required either, so will hook in anyone who finds a puggie too confusing.

 

Spot on!

 

Bookies can't fix the machines as they get investigated to ensure they are fair. The 2% house edge is where the profit comes from. As MJ said, the speed of play in a bookies is much faster, so they are getting a higher turnover than the casinos

[RobM]

Heads!

 

Nope tails. You owe me ?11.

 

Double or quits?

[this_is_my_story]

Cheers for that

 

What i do know :rolleyes:is if i have a bet on Roulette it will be on the table as opposed to the bandit as the thought of a chip stopping the ball doesny really appeal to me

 

All the stats you want guys but i bet you a quid to a penny:) the machine is programmed to watch the bigger bet and make sure it's a miss, at the same time giving out crumbs at the bun fight to the lesser stakes but still returning the same stats/return as the table:confused:

 

Hard to win Re, we know, but machines stink more than the wheel

 

Sorry, no offence, but all doubt has now been removed. You are paranoid.

[jackjambo22]

Sorry, no offence, but all doubt has now been removed. You are paranoid.

 

Paranoid about what ??

 

That I dont reckon machines in bookies are fixed, nope i dont Think they are fixed

 

That Roulette Tables seem better than Bandits, i see it that way

 

That i reckon a chip determines your fate more so than a spin, without a shadow

 

That i prefer a table to a Bandits Chip, correct

 

 

Maybe your a wee tad Para in the fact that you cant accept that

 

And until someone from a Bookies says otherwise i'll go with my instinct rather than some on line expert and know all

[Ivan Drago]

Paranoid about what ??

 

That I dont reckon machines in bookies are fixed, nope i dont Think they are fixed

 

That Roulette Tables seem better than Bandits, i see it that way

 

That i reckon a chip determines your fate more so than a spin, without a shadow

 

That i prefer a table to a Bandits Chip, correct

 

 

Maybe your a wee tad Para in the fact that you cant accept that

 

And until someone from a Bookies says otherwise i'll go with my instinct rather than some on line expert and know all

 

Ask anyone from the bookies and they'll you what acey has been saying - its completely random!!

 

PS more than one person from a bookies has said otherwise, on this very thread!!

[jackjambo22]

No probs

[Acey]

Ask anyone from the bookies and they'll you what acey has been saying - its completely random!!

 

PS more than one person from a bookies has said otherwise, on this very thread!!

 

I am indeed "from a bookies" (not Hills any more, though ). I've seen enough people p**s away thousands on those damn machines to know that the house edge will always win in the end.

 

By the way, it's interesting how the "it's a fix" claim never comes up when people are on a winning run...

[Ivan Drago]

I am indeed "from a bookies" (not Hills any more, though ). I've seen enough people p**s away thousands on those damn machines to know that the house edge will always win in the end.

 

By the way, it's interesting how the "it's a fix" claim never comes up when people are on a winning run...

 

you've defected!? where did you go to? (give me a pm if you dont want tell everyone on here ) I worked with Hills for a few years but managed to escape in May.

 

Always used to make me laugh the people who were convinced it was a fix, but were happy to keep sticking hundreds of pounds into the machine

[this_is_my_story]

Paranoid about what ??

 

That I dont reckon machines in bookies are fixed, nope i dont Think they are fixed

 

That Roulette Tables seem better than Bandits, i see it that way

 

That i reckon a chip determines your fate more so than a spin, without a shadow

 

That i prefer a table to a Bandits Chip, correct

 

 

Maybe your a wee tad Para in the fact that you cant accept that

 

And until someone from a Bookies says otherwise i'll go with my instinct rather than some on line expert and know all

 

In your own words, "the machine is programmed to watch the bigger bet and make sure it's a miss". If those words don't indicate that you think these machines are 'fixed', then I don't know what does.

 

People who clearly know what they are talking about have posted on this thread, and you still persist!

 

Picture the scenario:

Huge bookmaking chain, such as Ladbrokes or Hills, are found to be tampering with their roulette machines in a way which is influencing the outcome of the 'spin', especially with 'bigger bets'.

They consequently lose their licence to operate said machines, and in doing so, lose a massive chunk of their profit making potential. And all of a sudden, they're facing claims, and pressure for individual cases to be investigated, from customers who've placed these 'bigger bets' and want to know if they were shafted. That'd be quite a minefield, wouldn't it?

 

As for the 'know all' comment, I'll take that as a compliment.

[jackjambo22]

In your own words, "the machine is programmed to watch the bigger bet and make sure it's a miss". If those words don't indicate that you think these machines are 'fixed', then I don't know what does.

 

People who clearly know what they are talking about have posted on this thread, and you still persist!

 

Picture the scenario:

Huge bookmaking chain, such as Ladbrokes or Hills, are found to be tampering with their roulette machines in a way which is influencing the outcome of the 'spin', especially with 'bigger bets'.

They consequently lose their licence to operate said machines, and in doing so, lose a massive chunk of their profit making potential. And all of a sudden, they're facing claims, and pressure for individual cases to be investigated, from customers who've placed these 'bigger bets' and want to know if they were shafted. That'd be quite a minefield, wouldn't it?

 

As for the 'know all' comment, I'll take that as a compliment.

 

 

LOL and why not

[Ivan Drago]

LOL and why not

 

Gambling Commission

[Ulysses]

No - that's like saying "I have a hen which lays golden eggs, but what I really want are two hens which lay golden eggs".

 

Yes, it is.

 

And your point?

[Nucky Thompson]

The young lad I've got working for me is doing his wages in every Friday:sad: It's got to the stage I've got to give his wages to his Gran:cool:

[djf]

On the internet I honestly think that some people would argue black is white.

[Ulysses]

On the internet I honestly think that some people would argue black is white.

 

Michael Jackson once said it didn't matter - but his dermatological track record damages his credibility quite a bit.

[Malinga the Swinga]

Was in ladbrokes a while back when they changed these machines from 1 screen to 2 screens, and myself and another asked the guy why they were doing so. he said it was because they were making the machines more random. Thing is, how can they be more random, they are either random or not, and that can't be changed.

 

Still prefer Irish bookies where these things are not allowed and you actually spend more time watching racing and speaking to other like minded punters. if UK bookies had their way, they would have a turnstile on door so they could start getting your money as soon as you walk in.

 

You do have winning streaks on these things, but over a period of time, you will lose.

[wibble]

The young lad I've got working for me is doing his wages in every Friday:sad: It's got to the stage I've got to give his wages to his Gran:cool:

 

At least you're doing the right thing by the lad.

 

See if you can't get one of the Gamblers Anonymous counsellors to join you both over a pint. A few scare stories might help the lad understand where he's headed.

[Malinga the Swinga]

After reading thread yesterday, watched some guys playing these last night and this afternoon, while doing some turf accountancy. Basically, not one player won and it was a steady stream of losing bets, at Ladbrokes last night and Corals this afternoon.

 

Ladbrokes had 4 machines, the maximum allowed, and over a couple of hours, each machine took consistently without paying out. Pretty much summed up when a guy playing a ?90 spin, covered every number bar 4 and three spins in a row, guess which numbers came out. He then got a win on lowest possible number he had covered, and although it said Winner, he still lost about ?50. Machine then reverted back to one of the previous 3 numbers and it was another skinner.

 

Same this afternoon, with one guy losing 18 spins in a row, with only 5 numbers coming up in that time.

 

If these machines depend on a 2.7% bias to the bookie, then that would mean that out of every ?1000 played, the bookie would be happy with ?27 profit. Sorry, but cannot see a bookie being happy with that return. A previous poster goes on about people in the know say the machines aren't rigged, and he works in a bookie so they can't be.

 

Don't buy it, every bookie would screw a punter out of his last penny, witness the ludicrous Rule 5, non-starters in National Hunt, and the 1/4 the odds on only first 4 in GN.

 

These machines will be programmed to pay out a certain percentage of winnings and take the rest in profit, so that bookies can cover up the losses they are making elsewhere in their portfolios.

[jackjambo22]

After reading thread yesterday, watched some guys playing these last night and this afternoon, while doing some turf accountancy. Basically, not one player won and it was a steady stream of losing bets, at Ladbrokes last night and Corals this afternoon.

 

Ladbrokes had 4 machines, the maximum allowed, and over a couple of hours, each machine took consistently without paying out. Pretty much summed up when a guy playing a ?90 spin, covered every number bar 4 and three spins in a row, guess which numbers came out. He then got a win on lowest possible number he had covered, and although it said Winner, he still lost about ?50. Machine then reverted back to one of the previous 3 numbers and it was another skinner.

 

Same this afternoon, with one guy losing 18 spins in a row, with only 5 numbers coming up in that time.

 

If these machines depend on a 2.7% bias to the bookie, then that would mean that out of every ?1000 played, the bookie would be happy with ?27 profit. Sorry, but cannot see a bookie being happy with that return. A previous poster goes on about people in the know say the machines aren't rigged, and he works in a bookie so they can't be.

 

Don't buy it, every bookie would screw a punter out of his last penny, witness the ludicrous Rule 5, non-starters in National Hunt, and the 1/4 the odds on only first 4 in GN.

 

These machines will be programmed to pay out a certain percentage of winnings and take the rest in profit, so that bookies can cover up the losses they are making elsewhere in their portfolios.

 

What a post mate, cheers

 

Says it all

 

[Boof]

On the internet I honestly think that some people would argue black is white.

 

What...you trying to say it isn't?

[Era Macaroons]

Good Post Andya...if u wanna play roulette go to a casino...at least it will be fair, but even then....

 

Its just a smaller version of the lottery

[this_is_my_story]

After reading thread yesterday, watched some guys playing these last night and this afternoon, while doing some turf accountancy. Basically, not one player won and it was a steady stream of losing bets, at Ladbrokes last night and Corals this afternoon.

 

Ladbrokes had 4 machines, the maximum allowed, and over a couple of hours, each machine took consistently without paying out. Pretty much summed up when a guy playing a ?90 spin, covered every number bar 4 and three spins in a row, guess which numbers came out. He then got a win on lowest possible number he had covered, and although it said Winner, he still lost about ?50. Machine then reverted back to one of the previous 3 numbers and it was another skinner.

 

Same this afternoon, with one guy losing 18 spins in a row, with only 5 numbers coming up in that time.

 

If these machines depend on a 2.7% bias to the bookie, then that would mean that out of every ?1000 played, the bookie would be happy with ?27 profit. Sorry, but cannot see a bookie being happy with that return. A previous poster goes on about people in the know say the machines aren't rigged, and he works in a bookie so they can't be.

 

Don't buy it, every bookie would screw a punter out of his last penny, witness the ludicrous Rule 5, non-starters in National Hunt, and the 1/4 the odds on only first 4 in GN.

 

These machines will be programmed to pay out a certain percentage of winnings and take the rest in profit, so that bookies can cover up the losses they are making elsewhere in their portfolios.

 

It's not as if every eventuality of which you speak could not possibly occur on a real roulette table now, is it?

Google it if you want, these machines are regulated. That is fact.

 

As far as racing is concerned, any corruption which does exist (and it does, any fool knows that) is more or less solely associated with race horse owners and jockeys, not with bookies - how can bookies possibly have any influence on 'non-starters'? When was the last time there was a court case involving 'bent bookies' as opposed to 'bent jockeys'? Kieran Fallon anyone?

 

Genuinely not trying to be condescending here, but I assume that when you mention 'Rule 5' (which doesn't exist), you actually mean 'Rule 4', where deductions from the punters' returns are made by the bookie. There is a good reason for this.

Simplest example:

Four horse race, Horse A is even money favourite, B is 7/4, C is 9/4 and D is 6/1. You've bet on Horse B and you've taken a board price of 7/4. Horse A is then withdrawn from the race. Horse B is now effectively favourite; it no longer has Horse A to beat to win the race, so obviously you cannot expect to be paid at the odds you backed the horse at, at the time the bet was struck. So, your returns are subject to a Rule 4 deduction, the scale of which can be found here http://www.mathematician-betting.co.uk/rule4.asp

 

Again, no offence, but I can't help but get the feeling that the "This is fixed, that is fixed" brigade is largely made up of slightly bitter mug punters who have lost (as 99.9% of punters do) a whole lot more to the bookies over the years than they have won. It's a bit like folk who complain about tv programs really - if you don't like it, switch over. If you think the bookies have you over a barrel, then don't bet with them. No-one is forcing you!

[Ivan Drago]

After reading thread yesterday, watched some guys playing these last night and this afternoon, while doing some turf accountancy. Basically, not one player won and it was a steady stream of losing bets, at Ladbrokes last night and Corals this afternoon.

 

Ladbrokes had 4 machines, the maximum allowed, and over a couple of hours, each machine took consistently without paying out. Pretty much summed up when a guy playing a ?90 spin, covered every number bar 4 and three spins in a row, guess which numbers came out. He then got a win on lowest possible number he had covered, and although it said Winner, he still lost about ?50. Machine then reverted back to one of the previous 3 numbers and it was another skinner.

 

Same this afternoon, with one guy losing 18 spins in a row, with only 5 numbers coming up in that time.

 

If these machines depend on a 2.7% bias to the bookie, then that would mean that out of every ?1000 played, the bookie would be happy with ?27 profit. Sorry, but cannot see a bookie being happy with that return. A previous poster goes on about people in the know say the machines aren't rigged, and he works in a bookie so they can't be.

 

Don't buy it, every bookie would screw a punter out of his last penny, witness the ludicrous Rule 5, non-starters in National Hunt, and the 1/4 the odds on only first 4 in GN.

 

These machines will be programmed to pay out a certain percentage of winnings and take the rest in profit, so that bookies can cover up the losses they are making elsewhere in their portfolios.

again, 2 words, the gambling commission. I've seen ppl take ridiculous amounts out of these machines, and lose ridiculous amounts

[Toggie88]

People seem to forget that if there was a percentage pay out, the machines would be easily minuplated. If it had to pay out 80% of the time, all you have to do is bet on two numbers, one slightly larger bet, and every time it spins, you slightly increase your bet. It would need to pay out eventually due to the fact it's got a percentage pay out.

[deesidejambo]

What a post mate, cheers

 

Says it all

 

 

Complete nonsense. The machines work on random number generation which give a house edge of 2.7%, exactly the same as table roulette. Within that there is a large amount of statistical variance (hence the winning and losing streaks) but there is no need to "fix" them to achieve another house percentage as the 2.7% already generates a fortune for the bookies.

 

Dont mix roulette with slots - they are different and their payout percentage can be programmed into the machine, but roulette cannot.

[Acey]

What a post mate, cheers

 

Says it all

 

 

It doesn't. It's anecdotal stuff, which proves nothing. Bet these same guys wouldn't be so keen to run their mouths off if they'd only bet on, say, 7, and 7 came up three times in a row.

 

It's just roulette. It's how it works. On each spin, any number is as likely as the next to come up.

 

Yes, it is.

 

And your point?

 

The point is that it's not worth risking the wrath of the government/punters by fixing the regulated machines, when the house edge already ensures that they're extremely profitable.

[jackjambo22]

It's just roulette. It's how it works. On each spin, any number is as likely as the next to come up.

********************************

 

 

 

But not on a bandit as it's chipped ffs, not spun, and thats my grief

 

Tables give you a poor return but you can be lucky, but it's the same add nausea no matter what casino you enter

 

Bandits just take Re unless they decide to be generous as they determine no matter what

 

I know guys that can tell you what number the bandit will land (after a milli sec)at after the chip releases the ball, that cant happen on a table no matter what

 

Both give **** returns but the table never changes, the bandit does by the programme inserted and will whack to decide what return it will offer,mmm

[Ivan Drago]

It's just roulette. It's how it works. On each spin, any number is as likely as the next to come up.

********************************

 

 

 

But not on a bandit as it's chipped ffs, not spun, and thats my grief

 

Tables give you a poor return but you can be lucky, but it's the same add nausea no matter what casino you enter

 

Bandits just take Re unless they decide to be generous as they determine no matter what

 

I know guys that can tell you what number the bandit will land (after a milli sec)at after the chip releases the ball, that cant happen on a table no matter what

 

Both give **** returns but the table never changes, the bandit does by the programme inserted and will whack to decide what return it will offer,mmm

I give up.

[jackjambo22]

I give up.

 

and rightly so

[djf]

It's just roulette. It's how it works. On each spin, any number is as likely as the next to come up.

********************************

 

 

 

But not on a bandit as it's chipped ffs, not spun, and thats my grief

 

Tables give you a poor return but you can be lucky, but it's the same add nausea no matter what casino you enter

 

Bandits just take Re unless they decide to be generous as they determine no matter what

 

I know guys that can tell you what number the bandit will land (after a milli sec)at after the chip releases the ball, that cant happen on a table no matter what

 

Both give **** returns but the table never changes, the bandit does by the programme inserted and will whack to decide what return it will offer,mmm

 

 

lol

 

I bet you're the kind of guy who would put his PIN in backwards at the cash machine if he was being robbed.

[jackjambo22]

lol

 

I bet you're the kind of guy who would put his PIN in backwards at the cash machine if he was being robbed.

 

What ever big bhoy:rolleyes:

 

Lot of pedants without back up

 

I've only ever suggested and posted my thoughts, but dont see them as a matter of :pbut some speak in that matter of fact manner on here with ferk all to say it's a real deal

 

Even had a minimum wager chipping :dribble:in for his beloved company

 

Might be repetitive ,but a ball at the casino spins on the throw of an employees hand and lands accordingly

 

On a machine the chip in the back decides no matter what and IMO that stinks worse than the table, thats all:confused:

[Ivan Drago]

What ever big bhoy:rolleyes:

 

Lot of pedants without back up

 

I've only ever suggested and posted my thoughts, but dont see them as a matter of :pbut some speak in that matter of fact manner on here with ferk all to say it's a real deal

 

Even had a minimum wager chipping :dribble:in for his beloved company

 

Might be repetitive ,but a ball at the casino spins on the throw of an employees hand and lands accordingly

 

On a machine the chip in the back decides no matter what and IMO that stinks worse than the table, thats all:confused:

two people, one who is in the industry and one who used to be.

[jackjambo22]

two people, one who is in the industry and one who used to be.

 

 

What check out attendants at best;)

 

The days are well gone when settlers were the dogs all computerized now:rolleyes:

 

Get me a guy on here that made the bandits, and then

 

What i dont see on here is people accepting that Bandits are totally different to tables

 

The Fact is one is a human hand, the other is a human chip

 

I know what i would bet on if i was daft enough to be dragged kicking and screaming into a Bookies or Casino

[Dr Ian Malcolm]

Frightening the amount punters lose on those things. However, they're not fixed. I understand what jackjambo is trying to say, but the chip is just the process of generating the numbers, just as humans are the process of generating the numbers at the table in the casino. Its not making a concious decision to screw the punter - it can't.

 

As an aside, I even had one guy suggest to me that we empty the free machines when punters are on adjacent machines to "put them off". Nothing to do with needing the cash out them to pay their bets.

 

Acey - you made a controversial switch to oppo?

[djf]

What ever big bhoy:rolleyes:

 

 

How creepy.

[jackjambo22]

How creepy.

 

No offence mate, fth and machines

[Ulysses]

The point is that it's not worth risking the wrath of the government/punters by fixing the regulated machines, when the house edge already ensures that they're extremely profitable.

 

Is the 2.7% "house edge" regulated?

[this_is_my_story]

Is the 2.7% "house edge" regulated?

 

It doesn't have to be. To put it this way, it's mathematical 'law', if you like.

 

See post #47

[Rab]

In short, if there are 37 numbers on a wheel (1-36 and 0), then, statistically speaking, if you bet on a single number, you'll lose 36 out of every 37 times.

 

Not strictly true. Each time you play, you have a 1 in 37 chance of winning. This is not the same thing as winning 1 in 37 times, as is you fail the first time, your odds are exactly the same the second time.

 

Therefore, statistically, you are likely to fail every time, no matter how many times you fail.

[deesidejambo]

Is the 2.7% "house edge" regulated?

 

Yes. The HA is a function of the random number generator and is simply 1-36/37 for a single zero machine. I'm assuming that the bookie machines pay out 36-1. If they pay out 35-1 then the HA goes up to 5.4%.

 

The regulation is the same that is applied to roulette tables in online gaming in that all the regulator does is conducts an audit on the random number generator. This is easy to do and companies exist to independently audit the generator.

 

Despite all the stories, it is not possible to beat roulette in the long run. The HA will remain the same no matter what "system" you use and it is exactly the same HA as if you were playing at a real table. The bookie or casino will always win and that is why there is no reason for them to "fix" the outcome. In fact there is plenty reason for them not to fix it, as they would be taking the risk of massive damages if the Auditors were to discover fixing. Major high-street bookies would never take that risk - the machines deliver the correct HA and they make a fortune from them already.

[deesidejambo]

Not strictly true. Each time you play, you have a 1 in 37 chance of winning. This is not the same thing as winning 1 in 37 times, as is you fail the first time, your odds are exactly the same the second time.

 

Therefore, statistically, you are likely to fail every time, no matter how many times you fail.

 

I think you are saying the same thing in slightly different ways. You are correct that each time you bet the chance to win is exactly the same. The wheel (or RNG in electronic roulette) has no memory. Failure to understand this leads to the famous "gamblers ruin" whereby people think things like "black hasn't come up for four spins so the chances of it coming up on the next spin are higher". In fact the chances remain exactly the same. The Martingale system of doubling your bets each time you lose uses this as a basis, but is also guaranteed to fail because sooner or later you will either run out of money or hit the machine or house limit.

 

I think what Acey is saying needs to be put differently - statistical variance comes into play - if you bet 37 times it is not guaranteed that you will win once out of 37 - you may not win at all or you could win more than once. However, over the long term (1000s of spins), this variance is reduced so that you end up back at 2.7% HA again. Casinos love variance because this is where "winning streaks" come from, and it is these that make punters come back for more - they either love the feeling they get from a winning streak, or even worse, they think its because of whatever "system" they are using is working. However, they will lose in the long term, as the HA cannot be beaten long-term.

[Ivan Drago]

What check out attendants at best;)

 

The days are well gone when settlers were the dogs all computerized now:rolleyes:

 

Get me a guy on here that made the bandits, and then

 

What i dont see on here is people accepting that Bandits are totally different to tables

 

The Fact is one is a human hand, the other is a human chip

 

I know what i would bet on if i was daft enough to be dragged kicking and screaming into a Bookies or Casino

 

So these big bookies are lying to their staff?

 

EDIT - in fact, its far easier for the human to rip you off than a computerised machine. FACT

[Tams bird]

Fiver is my limit Toooooooooooooo addictive though..