I’ll never forget the first time I realized there was hope for my compulsive gambling. I was at confession and the priest said, “I don’t normally do this, but I’m giving you the phone number of someone in gambling addiction recovery at Gamblers Anonymous (GA).”
I always had the desire to quit gambling, but didn’t feel like I had the tools or the power to do it. I went to weekly GA meeting, and although I had weekly relapses in the beginning, I kept going. I’ve been going for more than three years, and the meetings continue to sustain me in my recovery.
When I was young, my grandparents and family loved to play Thirty-one and other card games for nickels or quarters. When I won the ‘pot’ it was like a big win for me. When I lost, I remember my grandma saying, “If you can’t play, you gotta pay.” It was always very enjoyable and I was lucky with it most of the time.
In college, I went to casinos with my parents. I brought $20-40 to lose. I played normally and, at this point, didn’t think of myself as a gambler.
After that, I went on a tour of different states to visit different casinos and their different games. My first really big disaster occurred in Las Vegas, where I lost my entire paycheck. I remember walking two miles in the desert with no money and feeling despair for the first time. I continued to gamble and always played until I lost everything.
A few years later, I remember going to a casino and praying because I was feeling attacked by demons at the casino. The people to my right were arguing about money while the faces of the people leaving the casino were distraught. These images were in marked contrast to people just arriving, who were running in and joyful.
At this point, I realized that if I were to continue gambling, I would lose my life’s savings. I decided that I was going to quit gambling, which I did for 13 years.
Then about six years ago, I went to a casino as part of a Christmas party my employer had. I won a TV and split a large 50-50 jackpot, and decided that gambling wasn’t so bad. Within a few months, I had four big wins, ranging from about $1,000 to $6,000. I remember thinking, “This is fantastic. This is easy money.”
I was courted in the VIP program and invited to parties and special events. I went to the casino four to five times a week. I also learned how to get a cash advance on credit cards and how to link my player’s card to my bank so I could take money out in advance. In that year, I lost about $28,000.
Things turned dark for me. I suffered from anxiety and medical issues, including a visit to the ER for a racing heart. I worked overtime, but every cent went to the casino. This went on for three years.
I looked into the Vanguard Center for Gambling Recovery and was told that I could benefit from enrolling there. However, I worried whether going there would jeopardize my job. I felt like I had to choose between losing my job or losing my life.
Between the tools I’ve gained from (inpatient) treatment at Vanguard, outpatient treatment and my GA meetings, I’ve been able to sustain my recovery since May. I know that I can string days together with sobriety and take comfort in knowing I only have to make a decision for the day.
Given my history — and given the nature of this nasty addiction — I can’t say that I’ll never gamble again. But I do know that every day in recovery is a better day than every day spent gambling.
If I could reach out to someone in the grip of gambling — who probably feels that it could lead to some kind of insanity or even death — I would tell them how quickly things start to get better once you start your recovery. In Minnesota, we are lucky to have many great resources, but you have to reach out.
In the third of a series profiling organizations receiving grants from Minnesota’s Department of Human Services (DHS), this issue of Northern Light features Progressive Individual Resources, Inc.
Progressive Individual Resources, Inc. (PIR) is a multi-cultural provider agency that specializes in working with new African immigrant refugee children and their families to promote healthy social adjustment.
PIR’s DHS grant is for creating culture-specific gambling prevention programs. It’s focusing outreach on communities from the Sub-Saharan African region, including 46 countries with representation in Minnesota.
PIR is working to sustain a collaborative partnership with five leading African organizations, develop an engagement strategy consistent with the needs of the African community, and create a culturally relevant outreach and education strategy.
Some of the ways that PIR is seeking to achieve these goals includes:
Extending outreach to new and established African communities
Utilizing a culturally specific, community-based model and tailored approaches
Engaging in culturally relevant community conversations about problem gambling and its effects
Dr. Richard Oni, Ph.D., PIR behavioral health consultant, and Bili Banjoko, M.A., LMFT, PIR psychotherapist, are performing the work. They have started by identifying communities in need, coordinating with their existing meeting schedules and making sure they connect with community spiritual leaders.
Not surprisingly, they have confronted some challenges and barriers as they seek to raise awareness about problem gambling and survey the communities to learn more about their gambling activities and attitudes. “We find that there are a variety of barriers, such as shame and trust, that keep people from speaking openly,” says Bili. “We’re also finding that people still don’t know that this is all confidential. We need to make sure community clinicians know this is confidential and that the community trusts us.”
“People are confused about the cost and whether it’s covered by insurance,” adds Dr. Oni. “Of course grants ensure that the service is free of charge even without insurance.”
“The more people hear about this, the more we think we can make an impact,” says Dr. Oni. “People continue to learn and we share new approaches with them, not just therapy. For example, if gambling issues are presented as part of cultural healing, they may be more apt to actively participate in it.”
PIR is using different communication modalities to spread the word as well as partnering with other organizations to develop messaging across different mediums. “We’ve learned to use language familiar to each community because language matters,” says Dr. Oni. “We try to express things in local dialect, which can help with participation.” There’s also the strategic use of proverbs that resonate to motivate and encourage community members. (See accompany graphics for examples.)
“You have to have awareness before you can start managing illness,” says Bili. “We’re happy now to provide both outreach and treatment.”
It takes time, but progress is being made. Dr. Oni says, “There is an African proverb that says, ‘If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.’ Together we can provide resources to those who need it most and serve this community as effectively as possible.”
Results from a new national survey of gambling attitudes and gambling experiences (NGAGE 2.0) indicate that Americans are gambling more than ever. The study, the second of its kind produced by the National Council on Problem Gambling, provides a glimpse into gambling activity in a time of rapid changes in the gambling landscape. The survey took place in April 2021 and included 2,000 Americans.
The 2021 survey attempted to address the following questions:
Has the popularity of gambling changed?
What types of gambling have become more or less popular?
What’s the effect of restricting gambling or legalizing gambling?
What has been the effect of the pandemic?
How has legalizing sports betting affected gambling behavior?
Are more people gambling online?
Is there a relationship between risky investing and risky gambling?
Who is at the highest risk for gambling problems?
Does the public understand or stigmatize problem gambling?
Some of the key findings include:
The number of people gambling on 11 or more activities during the past year nearly doubled since the first survey in 2018.
Approximately 26 million more people bet online from 2018 to 2021.
In the three-year period (2018-2021), there were approximately 15.3 million more sports bettors, 18 million more fantasy sports players and 25.5 million more online gamblers.
While sports betting has increased, it does not appear to be because of legalization of sports gambling.
Participation in fantasy sports did not differ between states where sports gambling is legal vs. where it is not.
During the pandemic, more people have gambled less than have gambled more; however, those who gambled more during the pandemic are at higher risk for problem gambling than those who gambled less.
The percentage of gamblers increasing play during the pandemic was highest in those under the age of 45.
People in states where sports betting is legal are slightly more likely to gamble on sports more frequently than people in states where sports gamble is not legal.
There was no difference in the types of sports bets — single bets on game outcomes, prop bets or parlay bets — made in states where sports gambling is legal vs. those where it is not. At this time, the concern that prop bets will grow rapidly is not founded in the survey.
There is no evidence that legalization of sports betting has caused an increase in problem betting.
There has been a decline in betting on football but growth in betting on more obscure sports, such as soccer, eSports and tennis.
Gambling that has increased online include table games (blackjack, roulette, etc.), eSports, horse racing and bingo.
Online gambling has increased most in the 18-24, 35-44 and 45-54 age groups. The growth is larger in men vs. women (though they are similar in percentage increase).
Weekly traders gamble on many activities. They are also much more likely to answer yes to at least one of four problem gambling behaviors, suggesting that counselors should ask about investment behavior (as a possible risk factor) as much as gambling behavior.
From 2018 to 2021, the percent of gamblers showing no problem behavior was much lower in younger people, while remaining the same in older people.
Only approximately one in four young people (ages 18 to 34) say that gambling isn’t a good way to make money.
Men are approximately 50% more likely to be problem gamblers than women.
Sports gamblers are far more likely (approximately 13x more likely) to become problem gamblers than other gamblers. It’s not clear if that’s because sports gamblers tend to be younger or because they are sports bettors.
Approximately one-third of gamblers bet on sports.
Nearly a quarter of those surveyed feel people with a gambling problem are unlikely to get better or recover.
Read the original article on The Basis website HERE
By John Slabczynski
Many responsible gambling strategies, such as setting a budget, rely on bettors to monitor their own gambling behavior. However, monitoring one’s own gambling has key limitations, as gamblers often underestimate their losses or overestimate their wins. These problems with recall might be due to the complexity of calculating gambling outcomes and the particular phrasing of gambling expenditure questions. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Robert Heirene and colleagues that examined the accuracy of self-reported gambling outcomes (as compared to actual betting records) when participants were informed of specific ways to calculate these metrics.
What was the research question? How accurately do participants report their gambling outcomes when given instructions on how to calculate them? Additionally, what variables predict estimation inaccuracy?
What did the researchers do? The researchers recruited 652 customers1 from an online gambling operator via email and asked them to complete a short questionnaire. The questionnaire asked participants to estimate their total number of bets placed in the past 30 days and net gambling outcome, defined as total winnings or losses during this same period. Unlike prior studies that also assessed the accuracy of gambling expenditure, these researchers provided instructions on how to calculate these metrics. The researchers then compared participants’ reported number of bets and outcomes to their actual behaviors which were provided by the online gambling operator in the form of electronic betting records. Finally, the researchers assessed whether certain variables predicted the accuracy of estimated gambling outcomes.
What did they find? Only 7.4% of participants estimated their betting frequency within a 10% margin of error of their actual betting frequency, with 69.6% underestimating their betting frequency. Estimates of net gambling outcomes were similarly biased; only 4.1% reported a gambling outcome within a 10% margin of error, and 64.8% underestimated their losses (see Figure). Participants’ actual net gambling outcome was the greatest predictor of estimation inaccuracy, particularly among those with a net loss. Underestimating winnings was the second most common estimation error, yet only 12.8% of participants made this error.
Figure. Percentage of participants in each estimation error group based on the difference between their self-reported net outcome and actual net outcome (i.e., based on electronic gambling record data). Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
These findings show that even when given specific instructions on how to calculate their net gambling outcome, participants still failed to accurately estimate winnings or losses. This brings into question the effectiveness of many responsible gambling strategies, as people might not be able to consistently recognize when they’ve passed their betting limits. It may be better to have gambling operators provide bettors with frequent updates on their real gambling expenditure. This study also highlights potential validity issues in other gambling studies that rely on self-report.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
First, this article only assessed participants’ involvement on one online gambling operator and thus did not capture activity on other sites. Second, a very small number of participants (i.e., 1.9%) who received the recruitment email participated, and those who did participate appeared to have different gambling habits compared to those who did not participate.
Working your recovery program is hard. To help assist those who may feel tempted to gamble online or visit a casino or card room, there are a few tools that may be helpful. None are foolproof, but if you are committed to your recovery, these tools may help.
GAMBAN – a voluntary, self-exclusion tool for online gambling sites.
Given that many gamblers may be moving online, especially during COVID-19 times, MNAPG is offering individual subscriptions for an online self-exclusion tool called Gamban. This tool enables the gambler to block tens of thousands of online gambling sites on all devices. MNAPG has purchased one-year subscriptions that can block up to 15 devices in one household. If you are interested, please email sstucker@mnapg.org and a link will be provided to set up the account.
Read the original article on The Basis website HERE
By Matthew Tom, PhD
Many video games provide players with opportunities to purchase in-game items after they’ve already started playing. If these items give players a better chance of advancing in the game or help players stay competitive in online matches against other players, then the game is called Pay-to-Win (P2W). Some researchers have noted parallels between P2W games and some forms of gambling. For example, both can tap into people’s competitive spirits, getting them to spend more than they might otherwise. In this last week of 2021, as millions try out the new toys and games they received as holiday gifts, The WAGER reviews a study by Fred Steinmetz and colleagues that explores possible links between purchasing in P2W games, problems controlling gambling, and between gambling participation and problems controlling P2W purchasing.
What was the research question?
Are there associations between aspects of pay-to-win purchases in video games and problems controlling gambling?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers acquired data from the German online panel of the e-GAMES (Electronic Gam(bl)ing: Multinational Empirical Surveys). Participants responded to survey items related to (1) demographics, (2) participation in various gambling games, (3) number of payments and (4) total amount paid in P2W game purchases, and (5) motivations for making P2W purchases. Participants also filled out a screener questionnaire that measures risks associated with gambling (the Problem Gambling Severity Index; PGSI) and an analogous screener for risks associated with P2W game purchases (the PGSI modified for Pay-to-Win gaming, yielding a “P2W risk score”). The researchers used data from the 700 participants who both gambled online and were P2W players. They used linear regression models to estimate the associations between gambling activity and P2W risk score, between P2W purchasing and PGSI score, and between P2W risk score and PGSI score.
What did they find?
Gambling by itself was not a risk factor for problems with P2W games. However, extreme levels of gambling were. More specifically, participation in any of the eight forms of gambling listed in the survey had no or very small associations with P2W risk scores (see Figure), but people who spent more money on gambling, and those who had relatively high PGSI scores, had higher P2W risk scores. The reverse was also true; higher P2W risk scores and more frequent P2W purchases both predicted higher PGSI scores. However, in contrast, spending more money on P2W purchases was linked to lower PGSI scores. Figure. Gambling activities used in linear regressions to predict pay-to-win risk score in Steinmetz et al. (2021). Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
Simply participating in P2W gaming does not appear to increase the risk for gambling problems, or vice versa. However, excessively participating in one activity was linked with excessively participating in the other activity. There could be something connecting problems with one form of entertainment and problems with the other. For example, some P2W games contain gambling mechanics (e.g., loot boxes), so it is possible that these items are serving as substitutes for traditional gambling for some people. These findings suggest that those who experience problems with gambling should avoid getting deeply involved with P2W games, and that those who have had issues with P2W games should be careful around gambling.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
This survey was cross-sectional, so the researchers could not determine whether the problems with P2W games caused problems with gambling or vice versa. The screener for problems with P2W games has not been validated, so the risk score measured might not represent risk of harm accurately.
For more information: As publishers release new games, and add loot boxes and P2W mechanics to current games, fans and players with mathematical savvy post articles with their calculations of the utility (or lack thereof) of these items on forums such as Reddit. Much like with many forms of gambling, educating oneself about the games and how they function is one possible step towards preventing these games from creating problems in the future.
If you think you might have trouble controlling your video gaming (or gambling), resources are available for gaming and for gambling. Additional resources, including gambling and self-help tools, can be found on our Addiction Resources page.
Figure. Gambling activities used in linear regressions to predict pay-to-win risk score in Steinmetz et al. (2021). Click image to enlarge.