How Casinos Enable Gambling Addicts

[Jstack34]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/losing-it-all/505814/

Long ready but its pretty interesting. Not going to embed the link since its a long article

 

[beefdiesel]

Damn....good article thanks for posting

 

[Hamilbet]

I think my response to this article is.. "well duh"

 

[carlspackler]

...and grocery stores enable fat people.

 

[JDeuce]

It's hard not to sympathize with people who reach these depths of addiction. It's awful to read stories like this.

But it's also hard for me to see how a casino is at fault for someone losing money there. Nobody drags the patrons in and forces them to play there. Like it or not, actions have consequences.

Couple of points to this article from my perspective: I hate slot machines and don't find them enticing at all. Despise them. They're boring and annoying. I could lose $5k on an NFL bet and be at peace with myself if I had done the research, etc. But I'd be irate with myself if I ever wasted $2 on some dumb ass spin of a slot machine.

And I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't get any kind of thrill out of near miss losses like the compulsives in this story do. Quite the opposite, in fact...those types of losses piss me off worse than anything.

 

[mango]

And beer companies enable alcoholics.

I swear every few years they publish the same article with the same theme: an addict blows all their life's savings on gambling then blows their brains out. And of course it's all casino's fault.

Believe me, I'm an addict myself (over 500 trips to Vegas) but what I never do is blame someone else for my problem. I accept full responsibility for my own actions since it's not like they're coming knocking on my door and forcing me to do something against my will.

 

[joebatters]

Damnnn...that's my hometown.

 

[beefdiesel]

It's hard not to sympathize with people who reach these depths of addiction. It's awful to read stories like this.

But it's also hard for me to see how a casino is at fault for someone losing money there. Nobody drags the patrons in and forces them to play there. Like it or not, actions have consequences.

Couple of points to this article from my perspective: I hate slot machines and don't find them enticing at all. Despise them. They're boring and annoying. I could lose $5k on an NFL bet and be at peace with myself if I had done the research, etc. But I'd be irate with myself if I ever wasted $2 on some dumb ass spin of a slot machine.

And I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't get any kind of thrill out of near miss losses like the compulsives in this story do. Quite the opposite, in fact...those types of losses piss me off worse than anything.

I devote 50 dollars each trip to slot machines and play poker, blackjack and craps the rest of the time...when I get close to winning a jackpot it pisses me off and makes me quit playing, lol

 

[mango]

I used to be insanely addicted to slot machines especially after hitting a few minor jackpots. But now I'm usually able to limit my play to comped slot credits.

 

[niltes]

alcohol and food companies do not attempt to directly
subvert your discipline directly like casinos by plying
you with alcohol, comps, or whatever. alcohol ads
usually show people having a good time surrounded
by attractive members of the opposite sex (similar to
Viagra ads but everyone is older and the good time
only involves two people). food companies also show
happy and healthy people. these methods are much more
subtle and subliminal than what the casinos use to
separate one from their money. also, how much of
ones life savings can one spend on food and booze.
a lot, but not everything. in a casino, no matter
what your wealth, one can lose everything.
those are the key differences.

 

[kcameron95]

I'm surprised Casinos have not being vilified like tobacco companies. As the article states a good chunk of their revenue is tied addicts. As result they cater to addicts addiction and foster it. That is immoral and they (especially machine manufactures) should be sued out of existence.

Put it this way. If there were no gambling addicts most Casinos would be out of business. I don't think you can say that for other vices. Alcohol is bad too but if you took away alcoholics I'm pretty sure these beverage companies would still exist.

 

[PatsFan1283]

I'm surprised Casinos have not being vilified like tobacco companies. As the article states a good chunk of their revenue is tied addicts. As result they cater to addicts addiction and foster it. That is immoral and they (especially machine manufactures) should be sued out of existence.

Put it this way. If there were no gambling addicts most Casinos would be out of business. I don't think you can say that for other vices. Alcohol is bad too but if you took away alcoholics I'm pretty sure these beverage companies would still exist.

I don't think that is true though.

The lions share of the revenue comes from people losing a reasonable amount that they can afford to lose, in addition to all the other entertainment options.

 

[kcameron95]

I don't think that is true though.

The lions share of the revenue comes from people losing a reasonable amount that they can afford to lose, in addition to all the other entertainment options.

According article: [FONT=&quot]At least nine independent studies demonstrate that problem gamblers generate anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of total gambling revenues.
[/FONT]
If 1/3rd of your revenue is from addicts I guarantee you they have business plan on how to serve this audience. I have owned couple of different business in my life time, and if certain segment was generating 1/3rd of my revenue, they were the ones I most cared about and targeted. In ideal world Casinos should be turning away these gamblers as they are sick and don't belong in a casino. I guarantee you instead they are planning on ways to get more of their money.

 

[PatsFan1283]

Of total gambling revenues doesn't mean casino and resorts though.

That includes stuff like lottery, scratch tickets, keno bars, slots in gas stations etc which are huge money makers. I'm sure a ton of that revenue is just addicts.

For places like casinos, I think the %'s are much, much smaller.

So there is some conflating there IMO.

 

[PatsFan1283]

"[FONT=&quot] But since Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, tribal and commercial casinos have rapidly proliferated across the country, with some 1,000 now operating in 40 states. Casino patrons bet more than $37 billion annually—more than Americans spend to attend sporting events ($17.8 billion), go to the movies ($10.7 billion), and buy music ($6.8 billion) combined."


One of my favorite scenes from Sopranos is when Tony and Silvio are talking with the Indian guy and he said he had a religious awakening later in life that brought him back to his ancestry.

Tony says something like "Sounds like you found it when they started handing out the casinos licenses, eh?"

He says back "Better late than never"[/FONT]

 

[X-Files]

alcohol and food companies do not attempt to directly
subvert your discipline directly like casinos by plying
you with alcohol, comps, or whatever. alcohol ads
usually show people having a good time surrounded
by attractive members of the opposite sex (similar to
Viagra ads but everyone is older and the good time
only involves two people). food companies also show
happy and healthy people. these methods are much more
subtle and subliminal than what the casinos use to
separate one from their money. also, how much of
ones life savings can one spend on food and booze.
a lot, but not everything. in a casino, no matter
what your wealth, one can lose everything.
those are the key differences.

Good points.

 

[TomGshotput]

The lions share of the revenue comes from people losing a reasonable amount that they can afford to lose, in addition to all the other entertainment options.

If that were true, it would mean the casinos had an extremely dumb business model.

 

[PatsFan1283]

If that were true, it would mean the casinos had an extremely dumb business model.

I know your thing is trying to be witty without saying much of anything, but I guess I'll bite, why?

 

[TomGshotput]

If that were true, it would mean the casinos had an extremely dumb business model.

I know your thing is trying to be witty without saying much of anything, but I guess I'll bite, why?

Because it would mean they're not maximizing full value from their best customers.

Most people visit casinos only rarely, if ever. For those who qualify as problem gamblers, it may average every other day. For those who visit rarely, some never much as all, others play casually. So for every problem gambler a casino can get through their doors, they need a few hundred non-problem gamblers. Given that 2-4% of the population qualify as problem gamblers, that few hundred to 1 ratio is impossible to reach. The 30-60% figure in the article is accurate based on other sources.

 

[festeringZit]

This was the quote that jumped out at me:

Communities typically build casinos based on a mirage of false promises: that they will provide jobs, fund schools, and boost the local economy. But Earl Grinols, an economics professor at Baylor University, in Texas, and the author of Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits, has estimated that every dollar of benefit a casino brings to a community entails about $3 in social costs—whether it’s increased crime, or declining productivity, or more spending on services such as unemployment payments. “It’s a social negative,” Grinols told me. “Casino gambling is bad for the economy. It should not be allowed by anyone, anywhere, anytime.”


As much as I love a little bit of casino gambling, if that quote is true - it's shocking to me, and makes me rethink my views on casinos in general.