nach oben

Journal of Gambling Studies

Erschienen in:

01.09.2015 | Original Paper

Setting Win Limits: An Alternative Approach to “Responsible Gambling”?

verfasst von: Douglas M. Walker, Stephen W. Litvin, Russell S. Sobel, Renée A. St-Pierre

Erschienen in: Journal of Gambling Studies | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Social scientists, governments, and the casino industry have all emphasized the need for casino patrons to “gamble responsibly.” Strategies for responsible gambling include self-imposed time limits and loss limits on gambling. Such strategies help prevent people from losing more than they can afford and may help prevent excessive gambling behavior. Yet, loss limits also make it more likely that casino patrons leave when they are losing. Oddly, the literature makes no mention of “win limits” as a potential approach to responsible gambling. A win limit would be similar to a loss limit, except the gambler would leave the casino upon reaching a pre-set level of winnings. We anticipate that a self-imposed win limit will reduce the gambler’s average loss and, by default, also reduce the casino’s profit. We test the effect of a self-imposed win limit by running slot machine simulations in which the treatment group of players has self-imposed and self-enforced win and loss limits, while the control group has a self-imposed loss limit or no limit. We find that the results conform to our expectations: the win limit results in improved player performance and reduced casino profits. Additional research is needed, however, to determine whether win limits could be a useful component of a responsible gambling strategy.

The terminology used to describe gambling problems has changed over time. The current term is “disordered gambling” (Petry et al. 2013). A detailed description of the disorder and how different terms relate to severity is beyond the scope of this paper.

The casino industry prefers to use the term “gaming.” We tend to use the terms gambling and gaming interchangeably.

The AGA is the US commercial casino industry’s lobbying organization. It spends a significant amount of money lobbying politicians (Walker and Calcagno 2013).

http://www.ncrg.org/about-ncrg.

http://www.americangaming.org/social-responsibility/responsible-gaming/keep-it-fun.

Research in this area is called “prospect theory,” and goes back to Kahneman and Tversky (1979).

One potential problem with studies of online gamblers is that it cannot be known whether gamblers simply move to other websites to continue gambling.

For an accessible discussion of the statistics relevant for analyzing casino games, see Hannum and Cabot (2005).

It should be noted that the typical casino player who brings $100 to the casino may end up betting much more than $100 over the course of an evening. This is because as the player wins, the winnings are often put at risk in subsequent bets. In our earlier example of a casino visit, it is possible that over the course of an evening, the patron could have bet thousands of dollars, even though he ended up losing only $500 to the casino.

That is, the casino profits strictly from the casino games. If labor or other operating costs are exorbitant and more than offset the casino’s profits from the games themselves, then the overall casino operation could be unprofitable. Obviously, some casinos have not been successful, despite the statistics of their business.

We recognize that the figure shows percentages on the horizontal axis. However, the reader can simply imagine the horizontal axis being shown in a monetary scale; the fundamental point here does not depend on the scale for the horizontal axis.

Of course, the typical gambler probably does not make uniform bets. However, we hold this variable constant to isolate the effect of betting limits on outcomes.

The extent to which gamblers adhere to pre-commitments on gambling under different betting limits is an interesting topic, which could be addressed in an experimental study. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper.

However, as suggested by Fig. 2, only when the player makes thousands of spins will their probability distribution collapse tightly around the expected value of −5 %.

We set 6 s per spin arbitrarily. It seems reasonable, but of course, actual games could be slower or faster than our simulated slot machine.

This issue is addressed in the next section.

The minimum result in scenario 3 is −$100 because the player can lose at most $1 per play. The maximum result can be over $100 even with the $100 win limit because the player can win $20, $45, or $160 on a single spin. Therefore, the minimum number of plays (78) for simulation 4 occurs because a person won a jackpot and that pushed his total winnings over $100.

There is a very small probability that a player will break-even.

In our simulations, E[W] = − 30t, since the expected value of each $1 spin is −5 %, and we assume there are 600 spins per hour. For the discussion here, we leave E[W] in general terms. If E[W] is −30t and casino patrons know that the house edge is 5 %, then we would expect their V_H must be at least $30 per hour; otherwise, they would not sit down to gamble.

We ranked each of the “strategies” (i.e., simulations) based on V_T given different values of V_H. The full results are omitted for brevity, but they are available from the authors upon request.

Some economists argue that addicts still benefit from the consumption of the addictive good. This controversial argument is based on the theory of rational addiction (Becker and Murphy 1988), which suggests that past consumption reinforces future consumption.

The paper by Thaler and Johnson (1990) examines how people behave differently when playing with “house money”. One potentially interesting area of study would be the time frame over which house money transforms into “own money” in one’s mental accounting.

Adams, P. J., Raeburn, J., & Silva, K. D. (2009). A question of balance: Prioritizing public health responses to harm from gambling. Addiction, 104(5), 688–691.CrossRefPubMed

American Gaming Association. (2008). Responsible gaming statutes and regulations (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 647–660. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9332-y.CrossRefPubMed

Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. M. (1988). A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy, 96(4), 675–700.CrossRef

Blaszczynski, A., Gainsbury, S., & Karlov, L. (2013). Blue Gum gaming machine: An evaluation of responsible gambling features. Journal of Gambling Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9378-5.

Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–317. doi:10.1023/B:JOGS.0000040281.49444.CrossRefPubMed

Broda, A., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., LaBrie, R. A., Bosworth, L. B., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Virtual harm reduction efforts for internet gambling: Effects of deposit limits on actual internet sports gambling behavior. Harm Reduction Journal, 5, 27–36. doi:10.1186/1477-7517-5-27.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Cantinotti, M., & Ladouceur, R. (2008). Harm reduction and electronic gambling machines: Does this pair make a happy couple or is divorce foreseen? Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 39–54. doi:10.1007/s10899-007-9072-6.CrossRefPubMed

Corporate Research Associates. (2006). Video lottery program changes Nova Scotia: Impact analysis. Retrieved from http://www.gamingns.ca/images/uploads/VLTimpactanalysisreport.pdf.

Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Wang, J., el-Guebaly, N., & Wynne, H. (2008). In pursuit of empirically based responsible gambling limits. International Gambling Studies, 8, 207–227. doi:10.1080/14459790802172265.CrossRef

Derevensky, J. L., Gupta, R., Dickson, L., & Deguire, A.-E. (2004). Prevention efforts toward reducing gambling problems. In J. L. Derevensky & R. Gupta (Eds.), Gambling problems in youth (pp. 211–230). New York, NY: Springer.

Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56(4), 279–304.CrossRef

Griffiths, M. D., Wood, R. T. A., & Parke, J. (2009). Social responsibility tools in online gambling: A survey of attitudes and behavior among Internet gamblers. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 413–421. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0062 CrossRef

Hannum, R. C., & Cabot, A. N. (2005). Practical casino math (2nd ed.). Las Vegas, NV: Trace Publications.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRef

Korn, D. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (1999). Gambling and the health of the public: Adopting a public health perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 289–365. doi:10.1023/A:1023005115932.CrossRefPubMed

Ladouceur, R., Blaszczynski, A., & Lalande, D. R. (2012). Pre-commitment in gambling: A review of the empirical evidence. International Gambling Studies, 12, 215–230. doi:10.1080/14459795.2012.658078.CrossRef

Ladouceur, R., & Sévigny, S. (2009). Electronic gambling machines: Influence of a clock, a cash display, and a precommitment on gambling time. Journal of Gambling Issues, 23, 23–41. doi:10.4309/jgi.2009.23.2.CrossRef

Lalande, D. R., & Ladouceur, R. (2011). Can cybernetics inspire gambling research? A limit-based conceptualization. International Gambling Studies, 11, 237–252. doi:10.1080/14459795.2011.598540.CrossRef

Lund, I. (2009). Gambling behavior and the prevalence of gambling problems in adult EGM gamblers when EGMs are banned. A natural experiment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 215–225. doi:10.1007/s10899-009-9127-y.CrossRefPubMed

Maremont, M., & Berzon, A. (2013, October 11). How often do gamblers really win? New data provides some answers on the real odds for gambling, Wall Street Journal (online, wsj.com).

Moore, S. M., Thomas, A. C., Kyrios, M., & Bates, G. (2012). The self-regulation of gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 405–420. doi:10.1007/s10899-011-9265-x.CrossRefPubMed

Nelson, S. E., LaPlante, D. A., Peller, A. J., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Real limits in the virtual world: Self-limiting behavior of internet gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 463–477. doi:10.1007/s10899-008-9106-8.CrossRefPubMed

Orford, J., Wardle, H., & Griffiths, M. (2013). What proportion of gambling is problem gambling? Estimates from the 2010 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. International Gambling Studies, 13, 4–18. doi:10.1080/14459795.2012.689001.CrossRef

Petry, N. M., Blanco, C., Auriacombe, M., Borges, G., Bucholz, K., Crowley, T. J., et al. (2013). An overview of an rationale for changes proposed for pathological gambling in DSM-5. Journal of Gambling Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9370-0.

Responsible Gambling Trust. (2013). Corporate social responsibility. Retrieved from: http://www.responsiblegamblingtrust.org.uk/corporatesocialresponsibility.html.

Schneider, M. E. (2004). The everything casino gambling book: Feel confident, have fun, and win big! (2nd ed.). Avon, MA: Adams Media.

Schottler Consutling. (2010). Major findings and implications: Player tracking and pre-commitment trial: A program and outcome evaluation of the PlaySmart precommitment system. Retrieved from http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0016/2158/PlaySmart.pdf.

Shaffer, H., Martin, R., Kleschinsky, J., & Neporent, L. (2012). Change your gambling, change your life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

St-Pierre, R. A., Walker, D. M., Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (in press). How availability and accessibility of gambling venues influence problem gambling: A review of the literature. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 18(1) (Forthcoming).

Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 643–660.CrossRef

Walker, D. M., & Calcagno, P. T. (2013). Casinos and political corruption in the United States: A Granger causality analysis. Applied Economics, 45, 4781–4795. doi:10.1080/00036846.2013.804171.CrossRef

Williams, R. J., West, B. L., & Simpson, R. I. (2007). Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence. Guelph, ON: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.

Wohl, M. J. A., Gainsbury, S., Stewart, M. J., & Sztainert, T. (2013). Facilitating responsible gambling: The relative effectiveness of education-based animation and monetary limit setting pop-up messages among electronic gaming machine players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 703–717. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9340-y.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Wood, R. T. A., Shorter, G. W., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014). Rating the suitability of responsible gambling features for specific game types: A resource for optimizing responsible gambling strategy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 94–112. doi:10.1007/s11469-013-9473-y.

Titel: Setting Win Limits: An Alternative Approach to “Responsible Gambling”?
verfasst von: Douglas M. Walker
Stephen W. Litvin
Russell S. Sobel
Renée A. St-Pierre
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Gambling Studies / Ausgabe 3/2015
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3602
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-014-9453-6

Neu im Fachgebiet Psychiatrie

23.04.2024 | Demenz | Nachrichten

Springer Medizin

Setting Win Limits: An Alternative Approach to “Responsible Gambling”?

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Psychiatrie

Demenzkranke durch Antipsychotika vielfach gefährdet

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

„Psychotherapie ist auch bei sehr alten Menschen hochwirksam!“

Auf diese Krankheiten bei Geflüchteten sollten Sie vorbereitet sein

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

Gambling Motives: Application of the Reasons for Gambling Questionnaire in an Australian Population Survey

Demographic Risk Factors and Gambling Preference May Not Explain the High Prevalence of Gambling Problems Among the Population with Migration Background: Results from a German Nationwide Survey

Dopaminergic Medication in Parkinson’s Disease and Problem Gambling

A Comparison of the Status, Legal, Economic, and Psychological Characteristics of Types of Adult Male Gamblers

Upping the Reinforcement Rate by Playing the Maximum Lines in Multi-line Slot Machine Play

Smoking and Gambling Disorder: Does Tobacco Use Influence Treatment Outcome?

Neu im Fachgebiet Psychiatrie

Demenzkranke durch Antipsychotika vielfach gefährdet

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

„Psychotherapie ist auch bei sehr alten Menschen hochwirksam!“

Auf diese Krankheiten bei Geflüchteten sollten Sie vorbereitet sein