In the last year on record, they lost $188,299,512.19 to the ACT's machines. If the punters' losses are limited, as proposed, the clubs' revenues will be cut. You don't need a mathematician to tell you that.

ACT's Gaming Minister Shane Rattenbury said Tasmania's imminent system was "the gold standard".

If the government goes ahead and follows Tasmania, Mr Rattenbury reckoned introducing the system in Canberra might take five years and cost $70 million (which he thought the clubs should pay).

But he sounds enthusiastic. "I think we should get on with this," he told The Canberra Times.

By the end of the year, it will have started what's called a "universal pre-commitment system" for pokies across the state.

Every gambler will have to have their own card which they will have to insert into a poker machine to play it. No card; no play.

The card will be linked to their identity so cards can't be passed around. Gamblers will be allowed one card. It would have been verified against a driving licence or similar ID.

The card, inserted into a poker machine, would then ensure the gambler limits his or her losses to $100 per day, $1000 per month, and $5000 per year.

All poker machines in the state are already linked electronically. This network will be modified so a gambler won't be able to switch machines or venues to bet beyond the limit of his or her losses.

Rich gamblers who feel they can afford bigger losses will be able to apply for their limit to be raised. They would be questioned and they would need to convince authorities they've got the money to lose.

Whatever the result of Saturday's election in the state, the scheme should go ahead. Both major parties are committed to it.

The evidence is this kind of system, with limits on losses, does cut problem gambling.

Variants of it already operate in different forms in Finland, Quebec, Norway, Sweden and Germany.

In Germany, gamblers have to set up an account, and they can only gamble with what's in that account. Their winnings go back into it.

There has not been any evidence that many people have found ways around the systems, say by switching to online gambling, said Australia's go-to expert on gambling, Charles Livingstone, of Monash University.

"There is no evidence of this happening when such systems are introduced," he said.

In Norway, "rates of harmful gambling declined dramatically when slot machines were firstly removed, and then replaced with networked slots using pre-commitment systems", Dr Livingstone said.

He said the evidence is when pokie venues close in Australia, there was some increase in online gambling but not by much. Overall, gambling falls.

"Even in Australia, when pokies venues were closed, although online gambling increased, evidence shows that the expenditure did not replace foregone pokies losses," he said.

Not so fast.

There are some important differences between Tasmania and the ACT.

Firstly, Tasmania (like every other jurisdiction in Australia apart from the ACT) already has machines which are networked. They are already linked electronically, so it's much easier to develop the system where a gambler's losses across the network can be monitored and then limited. It is a mystery why the ACT does not have this kind of technology already.

The ACT would have to introduce such a system, and that would cost money. It might mean replacing every one of the 3500 or so poker machines across the territory.

Mr Rattenbury wants the clubs to pay.

"I think the industry should pay for it," he said.

"They are making substantial profits every year. If they want to make the profits, they need to take responsibility."

The clubs take a different view.

"This approach, if implemented as suggested, will have an immediate and direct impact on the viability of clubs. Venues will close," said the chief executive of ClubsACT, Craig Shannon.

His argument is the clubs in Canberra are not-for-profit organisations. They are there for the community's benefit - unlike the for-profit pokies institutions in Tasmania.

On top of all that, Tasmania is an island. The ACT is not. Queanbeyan, in NSW, is virtually a suburb of Canberra. What the ACT does depends on what happens to the rules on playing the pokies in Queanbeyan pubs. Obvious, really.

Pokies are big money for the clubs - and big money for the government.

On the latest figures, Canberrans lose around $16 million per month to the pokies, and so to the clubs. Of that, around $3 million a month goes in tax.

There is also another political aspect. The ACT's four Labor clubs still describe one of their aims as to "promote and support the Australian Labor Party".

The direct financial connection between clubs and party is not clear. A trust fund was set up as an intermediary. But it is still clear clubs and party have close emotional and historical ties.

On the latest figures, members of those four clubs lose around $20 million in the poker machines. The members' loss is a gain for the clubs' finances. If the members lose less at the pokies, the clubs gain less to spend.

Might a substantial hit to the clubs' incomes make a Labor government think more than twice about denting that income to the clubs it's close to?

And this is an election year in the ACT. The Greens have become vocal on tightening the rules to limit gamblers' losses. Might that zeal wane after the election?

In Tasmania, relatives of people addicted to gambling can appeal for the problem gambler to be barred from machines. It's called "third-party exclusion".

When The Canberra Times highlighted the suicide of Raimon "Ray" Kasurinen, his family complained they had begged the Hellenic Club to bar him but to no effect.

The rule in Tasmania, as outlined by the state government, is: "A person with a close personal interest in the welfare of another individual (such as a spouse, child, or other immediate family member) may apply to the Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission for an order prohibiting that other person from participating in gaming or wagering at venues across the state.

"The request to the commission should include evidence and examples of the social, psychological, emotional and physical effects of the gambling behaviour on the person sought to be excluded, their immediate and wider personal contacts, as well as the impact on their family."

There are formal hearings at which the gambler can offer evidence, and officialdom makes a judgment.

It seems unlikely the ACT can continue to be the only jurisdiction in Australia where machines aren't networked together.

It also seems unlikely an ACT government can resist a movement across Australia to start limiting gamblers' losses. Tasmania is about to do it. Victoria is heading in that direction.

Public attitudes may also be changing. There was no great outcry when Labor MLA Dr Marisa Paterson pushed through a ban on poker machines in new suburbs of Canberra and the Molonglo Valley.

The clubs will no doubt oppose restrictions, saying they threaten great community institutions. And they may be right. The government may have to come up with ways of cushioning the blow.

But the clubs may also see the writing on the wall. They want, above all, the ability to plan a future, no doubt with fewer machines.

Whatever happens, it won't be overnight.

And there's a lot of politics to come.