The United Kingdom is now planning to cut the maximum bet from £100 to something between £2 and £50. The exact maximum will be decided in 12 weeks, by January 23. The losers will be Ladbrokes Coral Group and William Hill, with some damage to Paddy Power Betfair. The new maximum will probably be a lot closer to £50 than to £2, this from internal government documents indicating that cutting the maximum to £50 would cost £35M over 10 years, but to £2 would see £639M lost.

The projection is silly, but the point of it isn’t the exact number. By releasing these documents the UK government is saying that it prefers a higher maximum so as not to look like it is trying to actively destroy an industry. The projection itself has little economic value because the lost money is going to go somewhere else. Higher stakes in sportsbook, more business at brick and mortar casinos, or more online gambling volume. Paddy Power Betfair seems to be aware of this, and its CEO has urged the maximum to be cut to £10 at most. A shrewd move if the company is trying to stay on the good side of public opinion, but thinks that a major cut in the maximum is inevitable. If this comment adds anything, it’s that the minimum maximum will be £10, so we have a loose range of £10 to £50.

In the long run the move away from FOBT machines will probably end up being a net positive for the UK gambling industry. Since FOBTs are big, hulky, tangible, visible things, blame for the ills of gambling addiction can be pinned on them. It’s an anchor for public ire, like a good luck charm is an anchor for positive thoughts. If someone becomes addicted to online gambling though, there is nothing tangible for public mass hysteria to attach itself to. If online gambling addiction causes poverty, there will be nothing physical to point to in an academic study that can be assigned the blame, and revenues from gambling addicts will keep flowing without as much public protest.

Even the media is admitting that a cut in the maximum FOBT bet is being sponsored by FOBT competitors, who, obviously, will be sucking up the lost FOBT revenues. Except this truth is being buried in the middle-to-end of the articles, with the headlines focusing on the FOBT side inserting its own material into the debate. In The Guardian’s headline piece on the issue earlier this week, the title for example reads “Fears over betting lobby’s influence on MPs in fixed-odds terminal debate,” fooling the reader into thinking that the lobbyists looking to influence are on the FOBT side of things. But that’s not exclusively the case.