Market Analysis HUNGARY
In order to compensate for the inconvenience of not being able to use cash, larger prize and bet limits would need to be introduced, including large
national jackpots. Further, to enable the community fundraising sector to benefit from the increase in online gambling that will follow, the sector
would need to be permitted to have its own online gambling offering and be permitted to advertise/promote its online product.
venues is extremely low; and if it is occurring, the sums are so small that the problem is negligible.
Te proposal to go cashless is fraught with a raft of difficulties. First and foremost, the technology currently does not exist to implement such a system. No other country in the world has a completely cashless system.
of the credit transfer process would, in theory, prevent play by persons who have excluded themselves from gambling, and would enable players to set a predetermined maximum spend amount. In practice, excluded players and persons who wish to spend above a predetermined limit, would gamble using multiple cards registered in the names of family and friends.
Further, given the already extremely low problem gambling rate, there is simply no justification, on a cost/benefit basis, to introduce an additional, elaborate harm minimisation measure.
Going 100 per cent cashless was also advocated as a way of reducing the risk of armed robbery. Te risk of armed robbery can, however, already be significantly reduced by installing a system that pays prizes via a ticket, which is then cashed at a secure redemption terminal.
Te third main reason given for overhauling the sector was a desire to reduce money laundering. New Zealand’s non-casino gaming machines have a maximum bet limit of only $2.50 and a maximum prize offering of a mere $1,000. Given these very low limits, the likelihood that money laundering is occurring at non-casino gaming
Te costs of developing and implementing the system for such a small market would be astronomical. Tese costs would directly impact on the amount of money that can be given out in community grants.
Te benefits of the system are also highly questionable. As detailed above, any harm minimisation benefit will quickly be eliminated by players using multiple cards registered in different names. Te risk of armed robbery can be addressed via much simpler and more economical means. Te amount of money laundering that would be prevented would be miniscule.
Te major problem with going cashless is that it will significantly reduce play by purely recreational gamblers, who may only play the machines once or twice a year. Tese players are unlikely to go through a laborious registration process and wait for staff to issue them with a card, in order to have a brief flutter. Imposing such a significant barrier to player access is likely to see gaming revenue drop by up to 50 per cent.
Te increased costs of going cashless, coupled with the drop in revenue, will destroy the community fundraising model, all but eliminating community grants, and will further
accelerate the migration of the gambling spend to offshore-based online providers.
If the regulator does push forward with its bold and untested cashless model, the only way the community fundraising model could survive is if the introduction of cashless gaming was packaged with other concessions. In order to remove the barrier to entry, the cashless system would need to allow players to place credit onto their machine directly at the machine via their existing bank cards or via a digital wallet service such as Apple Pay. In order to compensate for the inconvenience of not being able to use cash, larger prize and bet limits would need to be introduced, including large national jackpots. Further, to enable the community fundraising sector to benefit from the increase in online gambling that will follow, the sector would need to be permitted to have its own online gambling offering and be permitted to advertise/promote its online product.
Given that there is unlikely to be any political will for legislative change that enables credit card spending directly on a gaming machine; the regulator should consider other changes that are tested, economical, and known not to deter recreational players. Te use of cash at gaming venues could be reduced and handled more securely by permitting non-casino gaming machines to accept credit via a ticket and make payment to players via a ticket. Ticket-in/ticket- out systems are standard in all the major casinos around the world, but not currently allowed to be operated on New Zealand’s non-casino gaming machines. Implementing ticket- in/ticket-out would be a far more sensible option than jeopardising our valuable community fundraising model by pioneering a world-first 100 per cent cashless system.”
NEWSWIRE / INTERACTIVE / MARKET DATA P131
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230
