FB
MINNESOTA PROBLEM GAMBLING HELPLINE 1-800-333-4673 (HOPE) • TEXT "HOPE" TO 53342 • CHAT NOW ONLINE info@mnapg.org
A New Front Door to Gambling Support: How Evive Is Helping Connect More People to Recovery

A New Front Door to Gambling Support: How Evive Is Helping Connect More People to Recovery

For years, the front door to gambling support has looked much the same: a helpline, a counselor or a support group.

While those resources remain invaluable, they’re no longer the only way people seek help.

Today, many people facing challenges first reach for their phone to search for answers, connect with others or learn on their own. That’s the thinking behind Evive, a free digital platform now available to Minnesotans through the Minnesota Alliance on Problem Gambling (MNAPG).

Created by entrepreneur and person in recovery Sam DeMello, Evive combines education, self-guided tools, peer support and connections to local resources in one place. Rather than replacing traditional treatment, it’s designed to help more people find it.

“It’s not so much an app as it is digital infrastructure for the public health system,” says Sam.

What You’ll Find in Evive
• Daily check-ins
• Mood and urge tracking
• Recovery journal
• Educational lessons
• Guided coping exercises
• Peer support community
• Virtual support meetings
• Minnesota-specific resources
• Connections to counselors and treatment
• Goal options: stop gambling or manage gambling

Evive Foundation
The Evive Foundation provides help for gambling problems to anyone who needs it, regardless of income, location or insurance status. The foundation operates as a fiscal sponsorship program under a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity, helping make support more accessible to people affected by gambling.

Built from Lived Experience
Sam didn’t set out to build a gambling recovery platform. He spent more than a decade building technology companies before entering the digital health field, where he saw how software was being used to help people manage behavioral health conditions. At the same time, he was quietly fighting a gambling addiction that had begun in childhood.

His gambling started with poker at age 12 and escalated dramatically with online sports betting. Despite earning a good living and paying his bills, he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years.

“I looked very successful,” he says. “The addiction wasn’t just hidden from other people. It was hidden from me.”

Because he wasn’t bankrupt and didn’t fit the stereotype often associated with gambling disorder, he never believed treatment was meant for someone like him. When he finally sought help, he found caring professionals, but many resources simply didn’t reflect his experience.

“I was gambling on my cellphone with cryptocurrency,” he recalls. “They were talking about the horse track in 1978.”
Eventually, with support from his wife and a better understanding of the neuroscience behind addiction, he entered recovery. As his life improved, he assumed that chapter was behind him.

Then, after unexpectedly losing his job in 2023, he began searching for tools that could strengthen his recovery. He hoped to find a comprehensive digital resource, but instead found a gap. “There was nowhere that you could go to find all of the resources in one place,” he says.

Meeting People Where They Are
One of Evive’s defining characteristics is that it doesn’t require users to identify as having a gambling problem. When someone opens the platform, they’re simply asked what they’d like to accomplish: stop gambling or manage gambling.

“The reason it’s called Evive and not ‘Quit Gambling Today’ is because it’s for everybody,” says Sam.

Rather than labeling people, Evive focuses on helping them understand their own behavior and supporting whatever positive changes they’re ready to make.

“I don’t need to tell people to stop gambling,” says Sam. “I just need to hold up a mirror.”

Support Whenever It’s Needed
Evive brings together resources that are often scattered across multiple organizations, including daily check-ins, tracking tools, educational lessons, coping exercises, virtual peer meetings and direct connections to local treatment resources.

For Minnesotans, the experience is customized with links to MNAPG resources and services available throughout the state.

Community First
Although Evive includes sophisticated technology, its greatest strength isn’t the software.
“The community is probably the most valuable experience,” says Sam. Members encourage one another, share setbacks and successes, attend recovery meetings together and remind each other they’re not alone.
The community aspect helps address the shame and stigma that keep many from reaching out for help.

A Partner for Minnesota
MNAPG partnered with Evive because it complements — not replaces — the state’s existing prevention, treatment and recovery efforts.

For someone who’s ready to call the helpline or meet with a counselor, those resources remain available. For someone who’s not quite ready, Evive offers another path into the support system.
Sam believes that’s essential as gambling continues to evolve. “If we’re going to address this problem in the United States we have to break the stigma,” he says.

For him, every person who discovers they aren’t alone represents progress. “The reason I talk about it out loud now is that every time I do, I get emails from people saying, ‘I didn’t think anyone else was like me.’”

That’s ultimately what Evive hopes to offer Minnesotans—a welcoming first step toward support, recovery and hope, wherever they are on their journey.

Fall Conference Takeaways

Fall Conference Takeaways

MNAPG attended two conferences in October: the mid-year Indian Gaming Association (IGA) conference and the International Center for Responsible Gaming (ICRG) conference. Here are some takeaways. Indian Gaming Association Conference At the IGA, the focus was on the growing concern about prediction markets and casino sweepstakes—and the impact these unregulated, untaxed platforms could have on tribal revenues. Legalized gambling, whether you agree with it or not, has allowed Minnesota tribal nations to expand and diversify their economies and provide a wide range of services to their communities. These market disrupters are viewed as existential threats to tribal sustainability and independence. (Editor’s note: As of November 5, 2025, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office sent cease-and-desist letters to 14 illegal gambling operators—sports betting and casino sweepstakes.) The American Gaming Association also recognizes the threats these new platforms pose—not only to gambling revenue but also to consumer protection. Our current federal anti-regulatory environment could significantly change how people engage with gambling. By redefining gambling as a commodity and placing it under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), these platforms may create a stronger illusion of control—skill rather than luck. This illusion is a common fallacy among gamblers, especially sports bettors. Mislabeling gambling products as “trading” blurs the line between investing and gambling, putting consumers at risk. The way these platforms target young adults is particularly troubling. They are designed for continuous, habit-forming engagement, with no guardrails or risk warnings. The discussions were sobering and, for MNAPG, highlighted yet another area where we need to pay close attention and raise awareness within the community and among policymakers. International Center for Responsible Gaming Conference The ICRG conference, a day and a half of research reveals, provided an opportunity to hear firsthand the latest findings in responsible gambling, explore emerging tools and regulatory practices, and discuss the growing integration of responsible gambling principles into the broader gambling landscape. While much work remains, I’m encouraged by the shift among some operators to place greater emphasis on consumer protection. Our advocacy efforts at the national and state levels are having a positive impact, and we need to continue being the thorn in operators’ sides. One session examined the connection between gambling literacy and financial literacy and the need to evolve both so that users understand how risky behaviors can develop through new mediums like digital finance, investment platforms and social media. Another session focused on artificial intelligence and emphasized that AI should amplify human insight, not replace it. Advances in AI may eventually enhance early risk detection and enable personalized responsible gambling interventions—but only if we eliminate bias and uphold the highest standards of privacy protection. Finally, researchers studying youth emphasized the need to create relatable prevention materials and deliver them in the spaces where young people actually spend their time, rather than where we think they should be. They also highlighted the importance of developing prevention programs that account for gender, age and cultural identity.
IGCCB Becomes IPGGC

IGCCB Becomes IPGGC

The International Gambling Counselor Certification Board (IGCCB) changed its name to the International Problem Gambling and Gaming Certification Organization (IPGGC) in December 2024 to better reflect its expanded mission and scope. This rebranding acknowledges the growing convergence between gambling and gaming behaviors and the need for specialized training and certification in both areas. The organization, established in 1984, initially focused solely on gambling-related certifications. However, with the recognition of gaming disorder by the World Health Organization and the increasing prevalence of gaming-related issues, the IPGGC now offers certifications that encompass both gambling and gaming disorders. These include the International Certified Gambling Counselor (ICGC) credentials and the International Gaming Disorder Certificate (IGDC), among others. By updating its name, the IPGGC aims to provide clearer guidance to professionals and the public, ensuring that those affected by gambling and gaming disorders receive support from certified experts trained in current best practices across both domains.
The WAGER, Vol. 29(8) – Counting feelings: A qualitative validation of quantified gambling harms among gamblers in Australia

The WAGER, Vol. 29(8) – Counting feelings: A qualitative validation of quantified gambling harms among gamblers in Australia

Read the original article on The BASIS Here. By John Slabczynski Despite rising popularity, gambling remains a risky behavior that costs the U.S. an estimated $14 billion annually. One reason these costs are so high is because of the pervasiveness of gambling harms. Like other addictive behaviors, harms from gambling can stretch across multiple domains including social, occupational, health, financial, and even criminal. To minimize gambling harms, it is necessary to identify gamblers who might benefit from self-help tools or professional support, ideally before they experience severe consequences. One available screening tool is the Gambling Harms Scale 10 (GHS-10). One potential weakness of the GHS-10 is that it asks respondents to report whether they’re experiencing each harm using a simple “yes or no” format, rather than allowing them to report on how severely they’re experiencing a given harm. A person’s score is simply the total number of harms they’re experiencing. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Philip Newall and colleagues that explored the validity of this measure by studying the lived experiences of gamblers in Australia with different levels of problem gambling severity according to the GHS-10. What was the research question? Is the GHS-10 a valid gambling harm screener, in that the lived experiences of gamblers relate in a logical way to their scores on the GHS-10? What did the researchers do? The researchers re-contacted a sample of 30 individuals from a previous study. These participants were recruited based on problem gambling severity according to scores on the GHS-10 from the previous study. Additionally, all participants were age 18 or older and had reported gambling within the past year. The research team then conducted semi-structured interviews with participants to elicit information about the role that gambling has played in their lives, including positive and negative experiences and harms to themselves and society more generally. The researchers grouped participants according to their GHS-10 scores (no-harm = 0 harms, low-harm = 1-2 harms, moderate-harm = 3-5 harms, and high-harm = 6-10 harms). Then they explored whether those with higher scores described having more severe negative experiences with gambling. This would support the idea that the GHS-10 is a valid measure. What did they find? Qualitative perceptions of gambling and experiences of harms were strongly related to participants’ GHS-10 scores (Figure shows themes and selected responses). For example, participants in the no-harm category described gambling as similar to any other leisure activity, with one participant describing the financial impact as the same as “collecting stamps”. In support of the GHS-10’s validity, as GHS-10 scores increased, so too did the propensity for financial harms. At the low-harm level, financial impacts were within reason but could veer towards regrettable. Participants in the moderate harm category occasionally experienced severe financial harms and participants in the high-harm category described significant financial harms. Interestingly, many other themes were present at multiple levels of problem gambling severity (e.g., gambling to build relationships) albeit with some adverse consequences or risk as problem gambling severity increased. Gambling subthemes organizes by problem gambling severity   Figure: Displays the subthemes identified by the research team at each level of problem gambling severity, according to the GHS-10. A selected quote is shown under each subtheme that represents one participant’s understanding of each subtheme. Why do these findings matter? These findings are important because they provide more evidence for the utility of gambling harm screens, and the GHS-10 in particular. Specifically, this study showed that even without inquiring about the severity of gambling problems, the GHS-10 is able to discriminate between severe and less severe cases. Researchers should consider using this type of mixed methods approach that includes both quantitative and qualitative elements when studying gambling, as it can provide a more holistic view to better understand lived experiences. Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study? The researchers note that their background as gambling addiction researchers (and beyond that the developers of the GHS-10) might have biased their interpretations of participants’ qualitative responses. Additionally, though the overall sample contained 30 participants, no group of participants (i.e., across the no-harm, low-harm, moderate-harm, and high-harm gamblers groups) included more than eight participants, limiting the generalizability of this study.
Upcoming Conference Opportunities — Save the Date

Upcoming Conference Opportunities — Save the Date

Minnesota Conference The Minnesota Conference on Problem Gambling takes place on Thursday, Sept. 19 at the Hilton Minneapolis/Bloomington. While we’re still finalizing the day’s sessions, here are some topics we plan to cover:
  • The intersection of gambling and suicide
  • Financial counseling for families
  • The impact of gambling on families
  • Community leader panel discussion about gambling
  • Update on sports betting legislation
  • National gambling attitudes survey results
  Please check mnapg.org in the coming months for additional information about the conference as we solidify the agenda.   National Conference The National Conference on Gambling Addiction & Responsible Gambling takes place in San Diego on July 17-19. The conference brings together world-class presenters to deliver powerful and insightful messages about problem gambling and responsible gambling. For more information and to register, visit ncpgconference.org.
The WAGER, Vol. 29(5) – How does problem gambling relate to stock market trading intensity and volatility?

The WAGER, Vol. 29(5) – How does problem gambling relate to stock market trading intensity and volatility?

Read the original article on The BASIS Here. By John Slabczynski Due to the recent proliferation of new investing applications , more laypeople are engaging in retail stock market trading. Though some people have profited from this activity, many others have experienced significant harms. For example, in one high profile case, a young retail trader died by suicide because he (mistakenly) believed he suffered a huge trading loss. Several interested parties have also raised concerns around the gamification of the stock market, especially in brokerage apps like Robinhood, combined with the rapid pace of today’s retail trading, which calls to mind casino gambling. To prevent harm, it is important to understand specific mechanisms driving harms from investing. Therefore, this week, The WAGER reviews a study by Leonardo Weiss-Cohen and colleagues that examined how problem gambling severity and market volatility influenced trading intensity. What were the research questions? (1) Does problem gambling severity relate to trading intensity? (2) Does volatility in the market affect trading intensity? What did the researchers do? The research team invited 604 participants from an online survey panel to complete a simulated trading task. All reported both gambling in the past year and having lifetime experience buying a financial asset like a stock or bond. The researchers formed four semi-equally sized groups based on their scores on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI); 1) recreational/no-risk gamblers, 2) low-risk gamblers, 3) medium-risk gamblers, and finally, 4) high-risk gamblers. In the trading task, each participant received a startup fund and had the opportunity to invest in six fictitious stocks on a computerized trading platform. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, one with high volatility (i.e., stock prices moving up and down frequently) and one with low volatility. The research team manipulated the stocks in both conditions so that they would both have the same overall return (i.e., potential profit), albeit with significantly more volatility in the high volatility condition. To better replicate real-world behavior, participants received financial bonuses based on the results of their trading, with better performance resulting in higher bonuses. The researchers studied how problem gambling severity related to the intensity with which participants made stock trades, and whether participants traded more intensely when faced with high market volatility. What did they find? Contrary with other research, participants with more severe problem gambling did not trade more intensely. However, volatility did shape trading intensity; participants in the high volatility condition made 17% more trades compared to participants in the low volatility condition. This effect remained regardless of problem gambling severity and while controlling for financial literacy, overconfidence, age, and gender. Interestingly, exploratory analyses suggested that problem gambling severity may play a moderating role in predicting trading frequency, but only outside the highest levels of risk. Specifically, in all four of the gambling groups, participants in the high volatility condition traded more intensely than those in the low volatility condition; however, this difference was especially apparent in the three lowest-risk groups (see Figure). The WAGER, Vol. 29(5) – How does problem gambling relate to stock market trading intensity and volatility? Figure. Displays the mean number of trades for each PGSI category between conditions from exploratory analyses. The boxes on the right represent the average difference between participants in the high volatility vs. low volatility conditions for each level of PGSI severity. Why do these findings matter? These findings are important for two reasons. Namely, they suggest that volatile assets such as cryptocurrencies or high-risk stocks (e.g., penny stocks) encourage more intense, gambling-like trading than less volatile assets mutual or index funds. This suggests that the gamification of brokerage apps like Robinhood and Webull may be putting more users at risk than was initially expected. Additionally, because the effects of volatility were strongest among no-risk participants, messaging efforts should potentially target lower-risk traders and gamblers as well. Often, outreach messaging focuses on those most at-risk in the population, yet this study suggests that those at lower-risk might actually be experiencing more harms from trading. Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study? This study occurred in a simulated environment in which participants did not trade with their own personal money, so the external validity of this study is in question. Additionally, compared to the average online brokerage account, this study provided relatively modest amounts of capital to trade with. It is quite likely that higher stakes with more money could influence the results of this study, possibly by encouraging more risky trading. For more information: Individuals who are struggling with problem gambling may find support through Gamblers Anonymous. They offer in-person and virtual meetings. Others who are concerned about their trading or gambling behavior may benefit from visiting the website for The National Council for Problem Gambling. Additional resources can be found at the BASIS Addiction Resources page. —John Slabczynski
Translate »