Responsible Gambling Interventions: Helpful or Hype?


Problem gambling will continue to be an area of concern to the community, however instead of implementing restrictions that may look or sound good, research should be funded to investigate the effectiveness of these restrictions in reducing problem gambling – not only recreational gambling and not just done to win votes.

There is a lot of media coverage surrounding the issue of gambling and problem gambling. It has been turned into a political issue by the parties who are jostling for vital votes and lobby groups with their own agendas trying to sway public opinion.

A number of so called “harm minimization” interventions have been raised suggesting that they would reduce or eliminate problem gambling altogether. Some of these interventions are the cap on gaming machine numbers, removing ATM’s from gambling venues, changing the denomination amount that can be inserted into a gaming machine (in some other States), reducing trading hours of gaming venues, banning smoking and introducing ticket-in-ticket-out.

Before considering such interventions it is important to understand the behavior of a problem gambler. After all, they are the people that these harm minimization strategies are targeting, aren’t they?

Compulsive, pathological, problem, addictive – whatever term you use – gamblers continue to gamble despite the fact they continue to lose money. A large majority of these people continue to do this because it is a form of escapism. Many are depressed, mentally/physically ill, have been mentally/physically abused, are in unhappy marriages (or relationships), are widowed, have a stressful job and the list goes on. The “high” that gamblers describe when they gamble is not dissimilar to that of a drug user or alcoholic.

Therefore, is the answer to remove a percentage of poker machines, to remove ATM’s from gaming venues, to reduce the denomination of money that a gambler can insert into a machine, to ban smoking in gaming venues? Do drug users stop taking drugs when their drug dealer stops supplying them drugs or when the price of drugs goes because the police intercept a large shipment of illegal drugs? NO.

If ATM’s are removed from gaming venues, problem gamblers will simply walk or drive to the nearest ATM to withdraw money because they are addicted – recreational gamblers wont because they cannot be bothered. Once again, do you think a heroin addict would decide not to travel to the next suburb if drugs aren’t available where they live? Of course not they would crawl on their hands and heels to obtain their ‘fix’. They will do what they NEED to do. Independent research conducted by Sydney University in 2001 found that preventing note acceptors from taking $50 and $100 bills had a negligible impact on problem gambling. Removing note acceptors completely from gaming machines appears to reduce the expenditure by recreational gamblers (who can’t be bothered feeding in coins) but not problem gamblers (who are more determined).

If the amount of money (denomination) that a gambler can insert into a gaming machine is reduced – or if notes can no longer be inserted into gambling machines – problem gamblers will sit there for however long is required to insert the same amount of money – recreational gamblers cannot be bothered sitting there for that long to insert the money.

If a venue shuts at 3am because of the mandatory shut down, problem gamblers will gamble faster before the venue closes, go to open 24 hours rooms or gamble at an online casino.

Banning smoking means that problem gamblers just go longer without a cigarette so that they can gamble – in most cases (to the addicted gambler) the gambling bug is stronger than the smoking bug – recreational gamblers will stop gambling and go outside for a cigarette because that urge is stronger.

Problem gamblers adapt, the urge to gamble is so strong that regardless of the barrier that is placed in front of them, they will find a way to get around it. They are very cunning, intelligent and manipulative. They don’t just affect their own lives, they generally affect 5-10 other lives.

So how can gaming venues and government help reduce the effects of problem gambling on the individual and the other 5-10 people they affect? They can provide practical restrictions and assistance to gamblers and their families.

The reality is that problem gamblers are breaching their self-exclusions to try to win back what has been lost. This futile behavior results in further losses and desperate behavior such as stealing to get funds to gamble.

However, the problem of breaches of self-exclusion remains a nuisance for conscientious gaming venues who try to protect problem gamblers from themselves. The solution is to remove the incentive that problem gamblers have in trying to breach their exclusion. If they get in, but risk forfeiture of any winnings, then they lose their motivation. A winner must provide identification for any prize exceeding a certain amount. At that point the venue must take a long hard look at the winner. If forfeiture of winnings is likely to occur at this time, then there is no point in gambling in breach of the exclusion and excluded patrons won’t try to get in at first.

Many family members feel isolated because they feel as though there is nothing they can do to stop the gambler gambling. For example, in many cases the homemaker cannot put food on the table or pay the rent because the working spouse is gambling the entire house keeping money. If the spouse approaches the venue, the venue can do very little to force the gambler to stop gambling.

Articolul următorOnline casino platform from Slotegrator is optimized for the Latin American market