Oliver Whales Playball - 'a game of skill'

[pennymachines]

One of the machines I parted with (for a very reasonable £220) on Sunday was this early unrestored, as-found, somewhat distressed, Oliver Whales Playball allwin. Only when photographing it for the catalogue did I notice the interesting little typewritten notice stuck over the instruction card. I hope the new owner sees fit to preserve this important part of the game's history.

THIS MACHINE WAS EXHIBITED AT
THE NOTTINGHAM GUILDHALL ON
THE 6TH OF AUGUST 1943
THE MAGISTRATES AGREED THAT
SKILL PREDOMINATED AND THE CASE
WAS DISMISSED

Obviously the machine pre-dates the 1956 Whales Playball with the colourful plastic beachball backflash, but what's not so clear (to me at least) is whether these were made during or before World War Two. First generation Whales allwins, like the Playball, are essentially budget versions of earlier Bollands allwins, so it might help if we knew exactly when Whales acquired Bolland's patterns and stock.

Nottingham Guildhall

Until 1996, the Nottingham Guildhall accommodated the Magistrates' Court. Unlike manufacturers, operators who stayed open during the war experienced a boom, with troops on leave swamping the remaining centres of amusement. I find it surprising that at this late stage of the war the authorities still pursued such cases. It's also intriguing that an allwin passed legal scrutiny on the same grounds as the catching game in the famous Judge Scrutton case, where skill was found to predominate.

Unfortunately, I haven't found anything online about this specific case, but I see that fourteen years previous, the same court tested a "fruit machine, a cock machine (presumably the French allwin), a betting machine, and a Clown machine". Anticipating the skill defence, the prosecution argued that the question was irrelevant if, "the machines were being played on for money or money's worth". It would be interesting to see that judgement.

ALLEGED BETTING MACHINES

NOTTM. SOLICITOR EXPLAINS WORKING TO BENCH

GROCER SUMMONED

Four automatic machines, which it was alleged, had been used for the purposes of betting, were exhibited at the Nottingham Guildhall this afternoon, when Charles Warrener and Elizabeth Warrener, of Vane street, Radford, were summoned for using 23 Rancliffe street and permitting betting with a bell fruit machine, a cock machine, a betting machine, and a clown machine.

Agnes Warrener was summoned as the occupier of 23, Rancliffe street, for having permitted betting with the above machines. The three defendants were represented by Mr. A. M. Lyons, (instructed by Messrs. Whitworth and Eccleston), and pleaded not guilty.

Mr. F. Clayton, who represented the police said that Charles and Elizabeth Warrener were the joint tenants of the grocer's shop carried on at 23 Rancliffe street, which was managed by Agnes Warrener.

Explaining the working of the machines found on the premises, Mr. Clayton said successful operators of the machines having first inserted a coin were able to draw money or checks which entitled them to exchange them for goods at the counter.

Proceedings were taken under the Betting Act and it was his submission there could be no defence that skill was involved in the manipulation.

The consideration of skill with chance did not arise if the Bench were satisfied that the machines were being played on for money or money's worth.

The Nottingham Evening Post, September 25, 1929

Rancliffe Street corner shop

[moonriver]

What a great piece. It should be kept together with all of that information for future interest. Without that little label we wouldn't have known and I bet the operator had a field day with that machine (and the other 3) siting them everywhere with that outcome and his 'get out of jail free' card stuck on the front for years to come.

When I was operating modern machines, any game that was a game of skill (skill only) was exempt from the Gaming Act and could be sited literally anywhere. The industry was very innovative and sailed very close to the wind, inventing and reinventing games that would just scrape by or be in a very grey area of legality and outwardly making skill games look as close to normal gaming machines as possible. When you needed a local authority permit to site an amusement with prize machine in say a chippy (very hard to get), you could site a skill machine without one.

The main problem being that if the machine actually WAS a complete skill game then it wouldn't take any money, as a skilful player would just win and win.

Luckily for us at the time the Gaming Board (pre Gambling Commission) was reliant on Gaming Board Inspectors, usually retired police officers, or even army, who knew little about the ins and outs of the design and play of a game but just interpreted the Gaming Act 1968 word for word and by the mid 1980s was completely out of touch in comparison with machines being produced. Inspectors covered their own region of the country and mine was a retired army major not dissimilar from the Fawlty Towers major!

I remember we had a battle with a local authority over a shop premises. We had won planning permission for change of use to amusement centre (quite an achievement ) but they refused the permit. As appeals were time consuming affairs, and expensive, we decided to go ahead with filling it with skill machines in the short term until the appeal could be heard. We trawled other operators' stores and warehouses for the most obscure old machines we could find that could be even vaguely described as skill, even using wall machines converted to new 10p. We were hounded by the council in the interim but because none of the machine names they wrote down were modern enough to be cross referenced with the Gaming Board, nobody there would stick their neck out and say they weren't skill games and we got away with it!

Ironically we lost on appeal as we had to prove 'need'; in other words - is there a 'need' for another amusement centre? Extremely hard to do in law.

The final insult to all arcade operators was the change in the law in 2007 when bookmakers were allowed to have their 4 machines per premises (each machine having 30 different games on it) and bet up to £100 a spin, whereas arcade operators were stuck with a maximum of £1 a spin. On top of that, the bookmakers didn't need separate planning permission as they could open up anywhere under A2 office use. Every bookmaker nowadays is just an amusement arcade. 93% of their takings are from their machines, not sports betting. This has decimated the coin operated amusement industry both inland and coastal, which is why generations of arcade owner families have shut down, sold their premises and gone into other things. Very sad, as the innovation and diversity of the industry ensured new games were constantly being produced which eventually filtered down to be tomorrow's collectable machines that newer generations remembered playing and loved.

[badpenny]

The last pub I ran, The Nelson at Burntwood, used to have more in the AWP at the end of the week, than the till had wrung up.
Even more startling when you realise that what was in the machine represented the 17% - 22% that hadn't been returned to the players.
BP

[moonriver]

Yes you're right, most brewery operated machines run on 72% payout which is the lowest manufacturers switchable setting, as they are usually a quick 'pocket change ' collecting device (beware changing tenner after tenner thinking it must pay out soon).

Inland amusement arcades run on much higher % payouts as they rely on regular players who predominately play for enjoyment time. These punters have a choice of establishments and therefore 84% payouts up to 92% are common and bonus freebie giveaways abound as with all competition.

Costal amusements have little time to get your money and customers pass through. They work on footfall, high volume yet low average customer spend. Punters are happy to put a pot full of 2p pieces through a pusher whereas they wouldn't put more than five 10p's through one. To avoid duty, all pushers are on 2p play nowadays. Instead of counting every 2p coin emptied from the cash boxes, the Revenue agreed to rely on the take being the cash in to the change machines on site.

The worst place to play fruit machines is at the good old motorway services; different passing trade all day and night; software done especially for these sites, lower than 70% payout.

[13rebel]

A great thread from Mr PM and Moonriver - thank you for that. BP, I do not find it so alarming that AWP machines retained 17-22% as when I worked for EMI and Coral this was the norm. Also there were 2 hour charging periods where you could only take so much from the bingo players (fruit machines aside). My calculations show that electro-mechanicals of the 1960s retained up to 40% - possibly contributing to their demise? Bookmakers and on course Tote take roughly 21-25%, so slot machine operators are entitled to take the same perhaps. In modern arcades my understanding is that there is no legal percentage payout on fruit machines but the industry sets itself a minimum payout of 70% and most pay out up to around 84%. The only legal requirement is that this percentage should be displayed. In American arcades the high denomination bandits pay out a much higher percentage. Allwins and the like are another matter and are not easily calculated.

[13rebel]

Just read Mooniver's last posting, who beat me to it. Pretty much concurs. As he says, inland are likely to pay higher than coastal resorts.

[badpenny]

I guess I was ranting off topic there.
It wasn't the difference in percentage payouts that was bothering me. I used to get hacked off that I was paying a fortune in rent and working a minimum of 96 hours a week to cash up a pittance.

The money left in the AWP (which all went to the brewery, although I had to pay for the licence and 'leccy to run it) was more than I had in my till.

To add insult to injury I had to provide enough change to allow punters to play it and the bank charged me for that.

BP

[moonriver]

Always the same story, greedy breweries squeezing every last penny so there isn't anything left for the tenant. Joe public only see the 'glamour' of running your own pub and make huge assumptions about everything. This is one of the main reasons so many pubs have closed down. One brewery up here was charging £3,000 from a tenant to take over and move in, knowing that they would throw them out after a few months when they couldn't afford the bills and then charge another tenant another £3,000. The pub had seven different tenants in just over one year.