#problem gamblers

New Post has been published on http://www.gamblingweblog.com/2015/05/07/services-for-problem-gamblers-in-european-union/

Services for Problem Gamblers in European Union

The Relationship between the Availability of Commercial Gambling Opportunities and Problem Gambling

The research evidence suggests that most people who gamble do so in such a way as to enhance their enjoyment of life, and without causing themselves significant harm. A minority of the population gambles in a manner that causes substantial harm to themselves and their families, and such individuals find it unusually difficult to stop or to control their gambling. In a minority of these cases, the harm caused by severe pathological gambling is as devastating as that caused by alcoholism and other addictions.

It is a matter of judgment to decide to what extent restricting freedom of choice for the majority of people who gamble harmlessly is justified in the hope of protecting a minority who might otherwise gamble excessively. However, prohibition and restriction of opportunities to gamble clearly do not eliminate the incidence of problem gambling. It is not known whether or to what extent, if any, they reduce it.

It is plausible to think that some people who have a psychological, genetic, or neurobiological propensity to become problem gamblers are more likely to be elicited by certain kinds of legal and regulatory frameworks than others. Evidence and casual observation suggest that the risk of developing a gambling problem increase if gambling opportunities:

are continuous • offer frequent prizes • offer what are perceived to be high prizes • allow large sums to be staked • allow credit to be used • are located in venues where people are likely to gamble on impulse • are introduced without an accompanying public education campaign which makes people aware of the dangers of gambling and how to avoid them.

No form of gambling is risk-free, but one can deduce that casino games are riskier than betting on sporting and other events, and betting on events is riskier than buying weekly lottery tickets. Casino games are safer if they are offered at a single venue where people must make a conscious decision in advance to visit rather than simply encountering an opportunity to gamble while undertaking other activities, i.e. gaming machines in a bar. They are less safe in venues that are close to where people live and work. They are less safe in venues—such as supermarkets and bars—where people go for other purposes and may be more readily tempted to gamble on impulse.

The introduction or expansion of casinos does not necessarily lead to an increase in problem gambling. A study by Volberg on the introduction of casinos and gaming machines in Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington State compared problem gambling rates before and after the introduction of casinos or gaming machines. (Volberg, R. A. 2001. Gambling and Problem Gambling in North Dakota: A Replication Study, 1992 to 2000. Report to the North Dakota Office of the Governor. Bismarck, ND: Office of the Governor) She found that in Montana and North Dakota the incidence of problem and pathological gambling—as measured by the South Oaks Gambling Screen—increased substantially. In Montana, which had the largest increase, problem gambling grew from 2.2% of the adult population to 3.2%, and pathological gambling from 0,7% to 1.6%. However, in Oregon, numbers for problem and pathological gamblers declined from 3.3% to 2.3% for problem gamblers and from 1.4% to 0.9% for pathological gamblers. The critical variable, according to Volberg, was whether the introduction of casinos was accompanied by the provision of services for problem gamblers, including programs to enhance public awareness about gambling and its dangers.

Volberg’s findings—that the introduction of casinos or gaming machines does not necessarily lead to an increase in problem gambling—is replicated in the study which she undertook with Abbott into the incidence of problem gambling in New Zealand. They found that, before and after the introduction of casinos—where problem gambling services were extensive— problem gambling numbers decreased. (Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1996), “The New Zealand National Survey of problem and pathological gambling,” Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 143–160.) In summary, the evidence linking expanded gambling opportunities to problem gambling is scientifically inconclusive, though there is some ad hoc evidence (i.e. number of Gamblers Anonymous meetings, hotline calls, etc.) suggesting that increases in availability leads to increases in the level of problem gambling. This is clearly an area where greater scientific research is needed to clarify the underlying cause-effect relationships.

Availability of Services for Problem Gamblers

Researchers for this report received little information about the availability of problem gambling services as a result of our inquiries either from government or from service providers. The information that follows has been extracted from published sources including chapter three of a report prepared for the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust in the United Kingdom. (Collins, P. et al (2003), Towards a Strategy for Addressing Problem Gambling in the UK: A Report to the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust, The Responsibility in Gambling Trust)

There are four main categories of service or program which jurisdictions tend to put into place on either a statutory or a voluntary basis in order to mitigate harm caused by problem gambling: treatment; public awareness and prevention; training; and research.

It is only in the UK’s Gaming Act 2005 that provision is made to ensure that all these activities are developed and funded through the establishment of an industry body—the Responsibility in Gambling Trust— (RIGT, formerly the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust) and through the requirement that licensees demonstrate social responsibility.

The two other European jurisdictions which have significant responsible gambling programs authorized by the government are Holland and Sweden where the casinos industry as well as the lottery are owned by the state. Otherwise, from our findings, EU jurisdictions treat problem gambling in the context of the mental health services as are provided. Also, some jurisdictions have self-help groups for compulsive gamblers based on the program of Gamblers Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous.

In various Member States, there are established services available for problem gamblers. For example, in the UK, The Netherlands, France and Sweden, there are help-lines available for problem gamblers, as well as dedicated out-patient treatment services. In the UK, these are mainly offered through the service provider GamCare, which also operates the helpline. In The Netherlands, they are offered through the Jellinek Foundation which specializes in all addictions. In France, the helping service SOS Joueurs offers a variety of services over the internet and other information for problem gamblers. In Sweden, such services are offered through local organizations financed by local communities. Furthermore, research and education programs are offered in Sweden through the National Institute of Health and the Spel Institutet. Gordon House in the UK, as far as we were able to determine, is the only charitable organization which offers in-patient treatment for compulsive gamblers in the EU. Increasingly, help for problem gamblers in all these jurisdictions is being made available on the internet.

The following information is offered to the extent that it may be of interest:

Dutch mental health services in total treated 3,941 problem gamblers in 2001 compared with 25,510 people with alcohol problems and 36,658 people with drug problems • GamCare’s helpline recorded 14,915 calls in 2004, of whom by far the largest number learnt of the service through the Yellow Pages • GamCare treated 239 new clients on a face-to-face basis in 2004.

Methodological Problems in Addressing Problem Gambling

The following is offered as an example of the difficulties inherent with non-scientific considerations that affect the quality of published research in the area of problem gambling. One can argue that the process of peer-reviewed refereeing reduces the incidence of compromise in the research process.

The report produced by NORC (National Opinion Research Center) was commissioned by, and submitted to, the (U.S.) National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) in April 1999. (Gerstein, D.R., Volberg, R.A., Toce, M.T., Harwood, H., Johnson, R.A., Buie, T., Christiansen, E. et al. (1999), Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, the University of Chicago.) The major purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive national survey to update and expand upon a prior survey conducted in 1975 (published in 1976) by the University of Michigan Survey Research Center, for the Commission on the Review of the National Policy toward Gambling. (Kallick, M., Suits, D., Dielman, T. & Hybels, J. (1976), Survey of American Gambling Attitudes and Behavior: Final Report to the Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward Gambling, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.)

To achieve the goals of the NGISC, the sample size for the study was based on a number of factors: number of households with adult females and adult males, population of the two strata – lottery and non-lottery states, expected number of pathological and problem gamblers among males and females, distance to major gambling facilities, and the expected number of completed interviews (NORC 1999, Appendix B). It is important to note that one of the criteria used by NORC was the expected number of pathological and problem gamblers.

It should also be noted that the NORC report states that: “…as the data collection progressed, we determined that we would achieve our sampling objectives without the safety margin; thus we never released these cases” (NORC 1999, Appendix B). The NORC sample started out with 11,500 RDD (random digit dial numbers) of households stratified by lottery and non-lottery states. Of the initial 11,500 RDD households, 80%—or 9,200 numbers—were initially assigned for data collection, holding an additional 20%—or 2,300—in reserve to provide a safety margin. The completion rate of 2,417 for the 4,358 working residential numbers was 56%. The assumption was that there was no bias in the large group of non-respondents (respondents), an assumption which could not be tested.

This is a problem common to all primary data surveys and not just to the NORC survey. As was pointed out in the NORC report, the sample size for the problem and pathological groups (30 problem gambler and 21 pathological gambler respondents) is too small for generalizable analysis. This result seems somewhat unexpected (even though NORC stated that it was expected) since the sample was designed using—as one of the criteria—the expected number of problem and pathological gamblers. It should also be pointed out that even though the sample size was small it was, by design, unbiased (under certain qualifying assumptions concerning the 44% non-respondents).

Under pressure from the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, NORC increased the sample size of problem and pathological gamblers, and supplemented their sample with an intercept sample of gambling facility patrons, stratified by lottery and non-lottery states and at various gaming facilities in the United States. But this was not a random sample (equally likely to be selected) of households, such as the RDD sample. Intercept samples are not truly random and do not have well-defined statistical properties; it is therefore not possible to draw valid general conclusions for the population from their results. In addition, the interviews were conducted face-to-face, unlike the relatively more impersonal RDD telephone interviews.

Nonetheless, NORC combined the intercept sample, conducted to “find” more problem and pathological gamblers, with the RDD sample and used the combined sample for analysis. This procedure is fatally flawed since the patron survey was not a truly random sample as was the RDD sample. All of the care taken to assure an unbiased random sample using the RDD method was negated when the two samples were combined. Thus, it was not possible to analyze the respondents using the combined using statistically methods. Unfortunately, even though they acknowledged the problems with the merged sample, the NORC team still proceeded to analyze the results of the survey with respect to pathological and problem gambling. However, the results of their analysis with respect to problem and pathological gambling are not valid in terms of their ability to generalize to the target population, and therefore should not be used in research or policy analyses.

Important information for people  in the gambling industry to keep in mind when on the job, research shows that people with gambling problems avoid seeking help for fear of the stigma attached to it.

Even more reason to ensure that responsible service of gambling is enforced is the fact that once people develop a bad gambling habit, they are fearful of seeking help because they feel embarrassed.

The Australian National University’s Centre for Gambling Research has discovered that people with gambling problems try to hide the problem and don’t admit it even to themselves to avoid feeling ashamed.

The research involved interviews with more than 100 health and welfare professionals as well as gamblers such as regular poker machine players and people who identified themselves as having gambling problems.

The following excerpt from an article on Abc.net.au explains:

Researcher Dr Annie Carroll says people reported feeling more embarrassed about their gambling problem than a substance addiction.

"Many of those people had received help for their drug or alcohol problems but they hadn't told their counsellors about their gambling because they felt so ashamed about it," she said.

"Some of them felt playing poker machines was stupid so having a problem with them was stupid."

Read more http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/fear-of-stigma-stops-problem-gamblers-seeking-help/5098624

According to Dr Carroll, problem gambling is not well understood within the community in the way that alcohol and drug addictions are, which is a problem that many are choosing not to deal with.

According to Dr Carroll when people seek help for drug and alcohol problems they are perceived as doing a good thing and people commend them for this whereas people who have gambling problems don’t feel the same gratification, they instead feel like they look desperate.

The research also shows that the promotion of the message to gamble responsibly is “counterproductive”. The post goes on to explain:

"It puts all the onus on the person to gamble responsibly rather than admitting that gambling products, like alcohol and drugs, are innately risky products to use," Dr Carroll said.

"It actually puts it on the individual to control their gambling and when we spoke to the electronic game machine players they tended to not really have an idea of what gamble responsibly was anyway.

"It's sort of this vague notion that no one really understands. It doesn't explain to people how they should gamble."

Read more http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/fear-of-stigma-stops-problem-gamblers-seeking-help/5098624

Dr Carroll suggested that health strategies such as those used to tackle alcohol abuse should be used to help combat gambling addiction. She also explained that seeking help for gambling should be looked at the same way as getting treatment for any other health problem like drinking or drug abuse.

She went on to say:

"The general public should be encouraged to view seeking help for gambling problems as being a sensible action, rather than a sign of weakness or desperation," she said.

According to a post on the UK Independent website problem gambling is a psychiatric illness that will soon be reclassified with other addictions such as alcohol addiction. A gambling addiction, also known as compulsive gambling, is a mental and physical condition that occurs when an individual becomes addicted to the adrenalin rush associated with winning money. It is comparable to the “high” experienced by drug addicts and so should be treated as seriously. It is important for workers in the gambling and gaming industry to understand more about problem gambling in order to recognise the signs in patrons.

Read some of the things that have made the number of people suffering from gambling addictions grow so significantly according to the post from Independent.co.uk:

The proliferation of online gambling has brought into the home an activity that was historically male dominated. Women patients have reported that online gambling has made it possible for them to gamble excessively without the fear of social stigma. Some of our patients are mothers who gamble online while the children are present. Emotional neglect is something we come across frequently, and 30 per cent of our patients had parents who were problem gamblers themselves.

We need to protect children from gambling-related material appearing on their mobile phones and computer screens. If we manage this, we will be ensuring a safer future for our children.

Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones is founder and director of the National Problem Gambling Clinic, London, an NHS service provided by Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust. She is also a member of the Government's Responsible Gambling Strategy Board.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/we-need-to-help-the-next-generation-tackle-problem-gambling-8468375.html

It is important that anyone involved in work in a licenced gambling venue undergo Responsible Service of Gambling training so as not to contribute to the increasing numbers of people addicted to gambling. RSG training teaches employees what is expected of them in terms of the law. This includes approved gaming machine employees;approved gaming machine managers; andlicensees, directors and committee members.

Employers should establish mechanisms to ensure that appropriate and on-going responsible gambling training is provided to staff that provide gambling products to customers.

It is also important that as a means of improving staff training/awareness on responsible gambling, venues always discuss responsible gambling at staff meetings to keep staff in the loop and on their toes in enforcing responsible gambling rules.

I read an informative post on a popular gambling website recently that might interest you. According to the post the Australian government may soon legalise live sports betting. This is significant to the betting world because currently it is only legal to gamble before an event and not while the game is actually on.

The problem with that is, people are still placing live bets with sports books outside Australian borders, which means that we are losing money to these countries. This is what the government aims to prevent.

This is what the post had to say:

We have got some indications that the Australian government is considering allowing live sports betting under the Australian gambling laws within the next six to twelve months.

As an Australian you can only place a bet in an Australian online sports book before a game at the moment. However it’s possible to do live bets in sports books that are based outside of Australia. That’s why the government wants to regulate these laws to keep the funds within Australia.

Source: http://au.casinoplacard.com/news/australia-to-legalize-live-sport-betting/

There are also issues surrounding the legalisation of online poker, which currently is only available on poker machines dispersed across Oz at various shops. However these machines too have been the source of controversy, which is why we may see even these machines being limited. Solutions such as placing maximum bet restrictions on poker machines have been put forward by The Green Party, concerned about the problems that may arise.

The issue seems to be conflict about ethics. What is good for the social wellbeing of the country as opposed to the financial good. Do we allow these surges in gambling activity to continue, because they may affect families and societies? Yes more people may become addicted but at least we will not lose out on the revenue currently being spent on overseas betting. Or do we retain firm control on online betting and gambling in general and those who wish to play poker online can continue doing so with overseas based companies? 

The post also went on to state:

Online Poker in Australia

The regulators are also struggling to allow online poker in Australia. They first want to try this on a trial basis. For now it’s only legal to play the poker machines that are widely spread and available in shops. These kinds of machines have been under attack from anti-gambling activists and there is a possibility that playing these machines will be restricted.

The Green Party want to put a maximum bet size of 1 AUD at these poker machines and they are also looking in to all the negative aspects of gambling.

It’s possible to visit an online casino to play poker that is based offshore.

As you can see there is a big conflict in this subject but what is most likely is that there will be some changes of the gambling laws in Australia.

Australian Gambling Market

Australians loves gambling and the Australian gambling market is very attractive. An average adult spends over 1.000 AUD in one year on betting and online casino products such as poker and the very popular online pokies.

 Online pokies

Online pokies are a market that has exploded and many Australians loves pokies. With the latest mobile casino another market has opened up for pokies and just make the market grows even more due to improving technology and accessibility.

Source: http://au.casinoplacard.com/news/australia-to-legalize-live-sport-betting/

After reading this post I was rather curious as to whether online betting is as problematic as activists are suggesting.  After some research I found a number of experts who explained why the dangers of online gambling are actually worse (and more addictive) than the traditional form of gambling.

Problem gamblers are more easily identifiable at a traditional casino than an online setting. Family and friends will be able to notice quite soon if gamblers begin to miss important commitments and work etc. Whereas online gambling can easily go unnoticed as gamblers carry out their normal routines.

It is easier for gamblers with an addiction to avoid going into a casino. It is harder to avoid online gambling, especially if their work entails working at a computer or online, the temptation to gamble will be greater.

The other problem with online gambling is that one’s bank account is only a click away. A person can empty their bank account without even realising it because they don’t have to physically draw money to gamble. Some people even forget that they are playing with “real” money and are in fact losing it.

One of the most common tactics online casinos use to lure in gamblers is "free-to-play" versions of their games. These are aimed at making people feel at ease and once they have been successful with the free version they feel comfortable with the real version, which often ends up taking all their money.