THE WAGER: Gamblers’ difficulty in estimating their gambling outcomes
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.
For more information:
The Responsible Gambling Council has tips to gamble more responsibly. If you are worried about you or someone you love’s gambling habits, you can find gambling support resources at The National Council on Problem Gambling. Additional resources can be found at the BASIS Addiction Resources page.
— John Slabczynski
Gamban
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.
Status of Telehealth Counseling Uncertain
Minnesota’s Department of Human Services continues to follow the federal health emergency guidelines for providing telehealth services. The current three-month approval will end in November. As of mid-October, there was no indication from DHS — one way or the other — as to whether this will continue.
Given the success of telehealth counseling and Minnesota’s expansive geography and often-hazardous winter weather, MNAPG will continue to advocate for this service becoming a permanent tool for counselors and therapists. With only 18 certified problem gambling providers in the state of Minnesota, most located in the Twin Cities metro area, we believe telehealth counseling is an essential tool in helping those experiencing harm from gambling, whether a gambler or a family member. While in-person will always be the gold standard, we think the accessibility of telehealth counseling can be extremely helpful for those seeking to begin their recovery.
Specialty Court Provides Alternative for Those Committing Gambling Addiction-Related Crimes
In Nevada, there’s a new alternative for individuals who commit crimes — such as theft or fraud — that are motivated by their gambling addiction. The state has the nation’s only Gambling Treatment Diversion Court (GTDC), which gives these individuals an option to pursue treatment if they plead guilty to nonviolent crimes.
The GTDC is modeled after drug treatment courts, which have proven successful around the country and are now in approximately half the nation’s counties. The Nevada court follows a pilot project in Amherst, New York.
The idea of specialty courts dates back to the 1960s during the Kennedy administration when prisons were getting too crowded, the cost of incarceration was high and rates of recidivism were significant. The theory behind the GTDC is that individuals can get the treatment they need, cease gambling, pay restitution to the aggrieved party, and go on to become productive members of society.
The process for enrolling in the GTDC system begins with a guilty plea in a criminal court. An assessment is then performed to confirm the existence of a gambling addiction and that the crime or crimes committed ultimately stemmed from the gambling addiction. Once the request to enroll is accepted, the applicant must pay a fee and commit to attending the GTDC at a prescribed frequency for a period of up to three years.
During this period of time, the individual must also wear a GPS device to ensure they don’t visit casinos or other places where gambling activity takes place. They must also consent to random drug tests. While many gambling addicts may not be drug users, the drug tests help ward off any “addiction switching” that may occur as a result of ending the gambling addiction.
Court sessions ensure accountability and provide opportunities for support group meetings. Program participants must also work one-on-one with a mental health practitioner specializing in gambling addiction. The participant must pay for this counseling, although loans and grants are available for those who can’t afford it. Should participants fail to meet the requirements or drop out early, they must serve the original sentence for their crime.
Judge Cheryl Moss has been the driving force in establishing the GTDC in Nevada. On the podcast “All In: The Addicted Gambler’s Podcast,” Judge Moss noted that she historically had about a dozen cases a year in family court that related to gambling addiction. As a result, she decided to get gambling assessments in certain custody and divorce cases.
According to Judge Moss, it’s been proven that specialty courts, such as the gambling diversion court, work. And it also saves the cost of incarceration, which in Nevada is approximately $24,000 per year per individual.
While the success of a gambling court is apparent, the challenge is getting judges to learn about it and appreciate its benefits to both the individual and the state. In addition to educating judges, it’s also important that criminal defense attorneys learn about the court so their clients know it’s an option.
The reception to the specialty court among those in the gambling industry and casinos seems favorable according to Judge Moss. She notes that some of the court’s participants have been casino employees, so the possibility for restitution rather than prison means the casinos will recoup at least some of their losses.
But in the end, more than financial restitution, it seems the option provided by the GTDC fulfills a moral imperative to demonstrate compassion and understanding. As Judge Moss says, “It gives people from all walks of life a second chance to be productive citizens.”
The State of New Jersey currently has two bills being considered to introduce gambling courts similar to the Nevada model. Action is expected on the bills later this year.
To help generate interest and awareness for such a court in Minnesota, Judge Moss suggests asking your congressman, senator or assemblyman to amend the state statute. It’s also helpful to spread the word to judges and help them realize that it’s possible to create such a court — and that it can be successful.
WAGER: Is spending on trading cards related to problem gambling?
The WAGER, Vol. 26(7) – Is spending on trading cards related to problem gambling?
Read the original article from The Wager Here.
Written by: Taylor Lee
Various in-person and online games allow players to purchase randomized packs of rewards, such as collectible card packs and virtual items. Some places are imposing regulations on video games offering loot boxes—purchasable virtual containers with randomized items—as they seem to fit traditional definitions of gambling. Indeed, people who report more problem gambling symptoms tend to spend more on loot boxes. Due to some similarities with loot boxes, collectible card game ‘booster packs’ have come under scrutiny as well. Collectible card games (CCGs) allow for the purchasing of physical booster packs containing cards that are sealed and random in game value. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by David Zendle and colleagues that examined the association between problem gambling symptoms and the amount of money spent on physical booster packs of trading cards.
What was the research question?
What is the relationship between the severity of problem gambling symptoms and the quantity of money spent on collectible card game booster packs in real-world and digital stores?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers used a cross-sectional survey advertised on the online message board Reddit, and obtained 726 usable responses from participants 18 and older. About 60% of respondents were from the U.S., but many different countries were represented. The survey asked participants about CCG physical booster pack spending in (1) real-world stores and (2) digital stores within the past month. It also assessed problem gambling using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). The researchers used PGSI scores to classify respondents as non-problem gamblers (n = 429), low-risk gamblers (n = 244), moderate-risk gamblers (n = 35), and people experiencing gambling problems (n = 18). They then used Kruskal–Wallis tests to examine if respondents in different PGSI groups differed in terms of how much money they spent on physical booster packs in real-world stores and digital stores.1
What did they find?
Zendle and colleagues did not find evidence for an association between problem gambling and quantity spent on booster packs in real-world stores (see Figure). Even though there was a statistically significant relationship for problem gambling and the quantity of money spent on booster packs in digital stores, the effect was too small to be considered clinically significant. There was also no significant difference in quantity spent on booster packs between people with and without gambling problems.
Figure. Problem gambling severity and spending (in US dollars) on booster packs in real-world stores among survey respondents (total n = 726). Although the authors performed their statistical tests on mean ranks, we provide medians to illustrate the trends across PGSI categories. The interquartile range (IQR) around each median was $39 for people without gambling problems (n = 429), $50 for low-risk gamblers (n = 244), $69 for moderate-risk gamblers (n = 35), and $119 for people experiencing gambling problems (n = 18). Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
This study suggests that while booster packs in collectible card games may appear similar to gambling in some ways, users do not seem to engage with them in ways comparable to traditional gambling activities. Thus, regulations—like those developed for loot boxes—might not be necessary for booster packs. This suggests that there is likely a difference in the ways that players interact with physical booster packs and digital loot boxes. Ultimately, the findings were cross-sectional, so the researchers could not establish causality; additional longitudinal and/or experimental research would help better illuminate the specific factor that accounts for the difference in loot box and booster packs’ relationship with problem gambling symptoms.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
Participants were recruited from Reddit’s online message boards targeting fervent players of collectible card games. An over-representation of enthusiastic players in the study’s sample may lead to findings that are not representative of more casual players. Social desirability bias through self-reporting may also contribute to participants misrepresenting their true spending or gambling behaviors. The most severe PGSI category had only 18 people in it, which likely limited the chances that the authors would statistically detect a difference among groups.
For more information:
Do you think you or someone you know has a gambling problem? Visit the National Council on Problem Gambling for screening tools and resources. For additional resources, including gambling and self-help tools, please visit The BASIS Addiction Resources page.
— Taylor Lee
______________
[1] The authors used rank transformations and Kruskal–Wallis tests to replicate past research in this area, and because they could not be sure if their spending data would meet the normality distribution assumptions of ANOVA.