Seriously what good does it does?
Government says that it is there to prevent people (compulsive
gamblers) from losing money. I think it is stupid and more excuse
for government to make money from the people. $100 levy its not
going to stop "gamblers".
I have relatives who gamble and take $10,000 a time to gamble at
Sentosa and Marina Bay casinos, in fact they bought the $2,000
yearly pass. So obviously they bet big like $1,000 a bet even, if
not they would not feel they have a good offer as they spend $2,000
for the passes.
Also it is a fact that the $100 levy cause people to stay at
casinos longer, The New Paper had an article which says people stay
longer at the casinos because they feel they need to fully maximize
the 24 hours pass you get with the levy. So they stay longer,
obviously gamble longer and lose more money.
Also, I am irritated as I like playing Blackjack. I know it's a
negative expectation but im very responsible person and I gamble
within my means. I don't mind spending maybe 200 or 300 dollars
(small money) to play once in a blue moon and "look see" the
casino, but because of the levy and i'm playing such small amount I
find it stupid to enter. I'm down $100 just by entering every
single time.
So what the levy has essentially done is banish all those
responsible or small-time gamblers, big time rollers would
always play with or regardless of the levy.
http://sg.theasianparent.com/articles/what-does-henry-queks-26-million-gambling-loss-teach-us
See this article about local s'pore businessman losing 26 million
in MBS casino. So does the $100 levy deter this "compulsive
gambler" from losing such a big amount? No.
Government says its to deter "gamblers" but its just a nice way to
take money from local people...LOL..
