Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Casinos are bad: new study

Sep 24, 2013#1

strawman

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/24/opinion/frum-casinos-harm/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

It's an opinion piece from a conservative about a study which was sponsored by a conservative group, but the study appears to have some merit.

Modern casino gambling is computer gambling. The typical casino gambler sits at a computer screen, enters a credit card and enters a digital environment carefully constructed to keep them playing until all their available money has been extracted.

Small "wins" are administered at the most psychologically effective intervals, but the math is remorseless: the longer you play, the more you lose. The industry as a whole targets precisely those who can least afford to lose and earns most of its living from people for whom gambling has become an addiction. The IAV report cites a Canadian study that finds that the 75% of casino customers who play only occasionally provide only 4% of casino revenues. It's the problem gambler who keeps the casino in business.

...

When New Jersey allowed casinos into Atlantic City back in 1977, casino advocates promised that gambling would revive the town's fading economy. The casinos did create jobs as promised. But merchants who expected foot traffic to return to the city's main street, Atlantic Avenue, were sorely disappointed. The money that comes to the casinos, stays in the casinos. Liquor stores and cash-for-gold outlets now line the city's once-premier retail strip.

The impact of casinos on local property values is "unambiguously" negative, according to the National Association of Realtors. Casinos do not revive local economies. They act as parasites upon them. Communities located within 10 miles of a casino exhibit double the rate of problem gambling. Unsurprisingly, such communities also suffer higher rates of home foreclosure and other forms of economic distress and domestic violence.

The Institute for American Values is sometimes described as a socially conservative group, but with important caveats. Its president, David Blankenhorn, has publicly endorsed same-sex marriage, and its board of directors is chaired by Bill Galston, a former policy adviser to Bill Clinton. The IAV is as worried that casinos aggravate income inequality as by their negative impact on family stability.

Before the spread of casino gambling, the IAV comments, the typical gambler was more affluent than average: it cost money to travel to Las Vegas. That's no longer true. Low-income workers and retirees provide the bulk of the customers for the modern casino industry. And because that industry becomes an important source of government revenue, the decision to allow casino gambling is a decision to shift the cost of government from the richer to the poorer, and, within the poor, to a subset of vulnerable people with addiction problems.

From the IAV study:
"Modern slot machines are highly addictive because they get into people's heads as well as their wallets. They engineer the psychological experience of being in the 'zone' - a trance-like state that numbs feeling and blots out time/space. For some heavy players, the goals is not winning money. It's staying in the zone. To maintain this intensely desirable state, players prolong their time on the machine until they run out of money - a phenomenon that people in the industry call 'playing to extinction.'"

How heavily does gambling weigh upon the poor, the elderly, the less educated, and the psychologically vulnerable? It's difficult to answer exactly, because U.S. governments have shirked the job of studying the effects of gambling. Most research on the public health effects of gambling in the United States is funded by the industry itself, with a careful eye to exonerating itself from blame. To obtain independent results, the Institute for American Values was obliged, ironically, to rely on studies funded by governments in Britain and Canada.

But here's what we can conclude, in the words of the Institute:
"tate-sponsored casino gambling ... parallels the separate and unequal life patterns in education, marriage, work, and play that increasingly divide America into haves and have-nots. Those in the upper ranks of the income distribution rarely, if ever, make it a weekly habit to gamble at the local casino. Those in the lower ranks of the income distribution often do. Those in the upper ranks rarely, if ever, contribute a large share of their income to the state's take of casino revenues. Those in the lower ranks do."

Sep 24, 2013#2

Bowielee

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/450335-the-lottery-with-its-weekly-pay-out-of-enormous-prizes-was

Sep 24, 2013#3

Shakey

"Modern slot machines are highly addictive because they get into people's heads as well as their wallets. They engineer the psychological experience of being in the 'zone' - a trance-like state that numbs feeling and blots out time/space. For some heavy players, the goals is not winning money. It's staying in the zone. To maintain this intensely desirable state, players prolong their time on the machine until they run out of money - a phenomenon that people in the industry call 'playing to extinction.'"

This is why I can't stand slot machines. There is so much going on with them it's hard to focus on whether you're winning or losing. There are so many combinations that you almost always win, but hardly ever more than you bet.

Sep 24, 2013#4

Officer_Charon

That's why, on the RARE occasions I gamble, I keep a "seed fund" in my right pocket, and my winnings in my left. Once the seed fund is gone, there's no more gambling. I never take from the winnings pocket. If I end up with more than I started with, hey! Awesome! Otherwise, it's really just about the experience.

And of course, I don't have anything RESEMBLING the pockets to play at the tables...

Sep 24, 2013#5

sixpackshaker

I lost interest in slot machines when they stopped dropping the coins. Because I can't do what @Officer_Charon does any longer.

That and I miss having the bucket of quarters/tokens to carry around, and even the sounds of coins piling up is fun...

Sep 24, 2013#6

Krisken

Never enjoyed slots or gambling in general. The thing which always kept me away was the horrible noise of it all. Even when it isn't crowded the machines and lights were enough to disorient and make me nauseous.

Sep 24, 2013#7

CrimsonSoul

Officer_Charon said:
That's why, on the RARE occasions I gamble, I keep a "seed fund" in my right pocket, and my winnings in my left. Once the seed fund is gone, there's no more gambling. I never take from the winnings pocket. If I end up with more than I started with, hey! Awesome! Otherwise, it's really just about the experience.

And of course, I don't have anything RESEMBLING the pockets to play at the tables...

I did blackjack like this. I allowed myself to lose 100 bucks total. I ended up like 150 ahead at the end if the day

Sep 24, 2013#8

SpecialKO

CrimsonSoul said:
I did blackjack like this. I allowed myself to lose 100 bucks total. I ended up like 150 ahead at the end if the day

This is pretty much what I did the once I went to Atlantic City with an ex-gf. Gave myself a $300 gambling limit and a $200/day for shows/food limit. I could gamble my winnings, but I wasn't allowed to pull out more money.

Ended that weekend $100 up in gambling money and we spent a little over $250 just enjoying the restaurants/entertainment over a couple days. Good weekend.

Sep 24, 2013#9

Ravenpoe

I'm also not a fan of slot machines or most casino style gambling.

But poker? Hell yes. My friends and I used to have a weekly cash game, and I still miss them.

Sep 24, 2013#10

Tress

I loves me some craps. I've always come out ahead when I play. Every other game, though, kills me. Well, except for poker. I do okay for myself in that.

Gambling is fun in moderation. Setting limits, never gambling more than a pre-determined amount, focusing on the fun experience rather than winnings... these are all good strategies. But as the article points out, people who do that aren't the big money-makers for casinos. They do have a tendency to prey upon people with problems. Personally I think there should be a law eliminating the use of tickets or vouchers in place of money won/lost. That disconnect is one of the things that keeps people "playing to extinction."

Sep 24, 2013#11

GasBandit

Ironically, the 5 card draw computer machine slots are the only thing in any casino I ever come out ahead on.

Sep 24, 2013#12

Ravenpoe

Tress said:
I loves me some craps. I've always come out ahead when I play. Every other game, though, kills me. Well, except for poker. I do okay for myself in that.

Gambling is fun in moderation. Setting limits, never gambling more than a pre-determined amount, focusing on the fun experience rather than winnings... these are all good strategies. But as the article points out, people who do that aren't the big money-makers for casinos. They do have a tendency to prey upon people with problems. Personally I think there should be a law eliminating the use of tickets or vouchers in place of money won/lost. That disconnect is one of the things that keeps people "playing to extinction."

I think a lot of those ticket/voucher practices began in places as a way of circumventing the law banning gambling with cash money.

Sep 24, 2013#13

SpecialKO

Tress said:
Personally I think there should be a law eliminating the use of tickets or vouchers in place of money won/lost. That disconnect is one of the things that keeps people "playing to extinction."

As someone who doesn't play slots, is that different from chips?

Sep 24, 2013#14

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe said:
I think a lot of those ticket/voucher practices began in places as a way of circumventing the law banning gambling with cash money.

Although, I want to point out, I don't think gambling should be illegal, nor should laws govern the ticket/voucher/blah blah thing. Let people be responsible for their own money.

Sep 24, 2013#15

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
As someone who doesn't play slots, is that different from chips?

Vouchers can be for any amount it prints out for. Chips are closer to currency because they have a set displayed value. A stack of chips is a much closer psychological analogue for "I have this much money" than a piece of paper with a figure printed on it.

Ravenpoe said:
Although, I want to point out, I don't think gambling should be illegal, nor should laws govern the ticket/voucher/blah blah thing. Let people be responsible for their own money.

If you're not free to make terrible decisions that ruin your life, you aren't actually free.

Sep 24, 2013#16

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
Vouchers can be for any amount it prints out for.

Oooh, I don't like that in a gambling environment. I'm not sure I think it should be illegal, but playing with people's expectations for what an amount of money "looks" like when casinos directly benefit from that confusion seems scummy as hell. That's scummier than MS (and other digital marketplaces) using virtual currency that doesn't correspond to dollar amounts or powers of ten.

I guess I'd be a shitty casino operator.

Sep 24, 2013#17

Charlie Don't Surf

I only have a really strong opinion on Poker, which I wish was classified as a game of skill.

Sep 24, 2013#18

drawn_inward

I find gambling highly depressing. Like the way you all describe, I don't go overboard. In fact, I don't think I've lost more than $50 on gambling/lottery. However, my brother is hooked (will and has gambled away his entire paycheck in one night). Every time I have been in casinos all I have seen are desperate people doing desperate things. It's just sad to me. Gambling preys on the poor and the ignorant and I guess the flippant.

I do like to play cards, and see skill in some of the games, but money ruins it.

Sep 24, 2013#19

Ravenpoe

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I only have a really strong opinion on Poker, which I wish was classified as a game of skill.

How could it be classified as anything but? It's a game of psychology.

Sep 24, 2013#20

sixpackshaker

Ravenpoe said:
How could it be classified as anything but? It's a game of psychology.

But you also have the random nature of how the cards fall. Hand by hand you win or lose by the luck of the draw.

Sep 24, 2013#21

strawman

sixpackshaker said:
But you also have the random nature of how the cards fall. Hand by hand you win or lose by the luck of the draw.

But even that's a matter of statistical analysis and risk evaluation. Yes, there's randomness, but that doesn't preclude it being a game of skill - it takes skill to handle that randomness and still win.

Sep 24, 2013#22

SpecialKO

stienman said:
But even that's a matter of statistical analysis and risk evaluation. Yes, there's randomness, but that doesn't preclude it being a game of skill - it takes skill to handle that randomness and still win.

I actually think online poker counts as more of a game of chance than table poker, which I think is a game of skill.

Actually communicating with live people whose faces and emotions and mannerisms and other possible tells can be used against them and weighed against the strength of your cards is a clear argument for skill. Faceless people whose only interaction is via the chatbar that most of them won't use takes that all away, and all that's left is a random number generator.

Sep 24, 2013#23

Bowielee

SpecialKO said:
I actually think online poker counts as more of a game of chance than table poker, which I think is a game of skill.

Actually communicating with live people whose faces and emotions and mannerisms and other possible tells can be used against them and weighed against the strength of your cards is a clear argument for skill. Faceless people whose only interaction is via the chatbar that most of them won't use takes that all away, and all that's left is a random number generator.

I don't think that there can be any doubt that there is probably more skill than luck involved in traditional table poker. The ability to bluff and read others is key to success or failure.

Sep 24, 2013#24

Ravenpoe

SpecialKO said:
I actually think online poker counts as more of a game of chance than table poker, which I think is a game of skill.

Actually communicating with live people whose faces and emotions and mannerisms and other possible tells can be used against them and weighed against the strength of your cards is a clear argument for skill. Faceless people whose only interaction is via the chatbar that most of them won't use takes that all away, and all that's left is a random number generator.

Even without faces, you can find clues in players betting habits. And as stienman said, there's statistical analysis or risk and possibility.

Sep 24, 2013#25

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I only have a really strong opinion on Poker, which I wish was classified as a game of skill.

With everything I've ever marked funny, I find this the funniest :rofl:

Sep 24, 2013#26

SpecialKO

Ravenpoe said:
Even without faces, you can find clues in players betting habits.

Yes, but it's undeniably based more on the strength of your hand than table poker.

And as stienman said, there's statistical analysis or risk and possibility.

Which is true of most games of chance that aren't slot machines. You're fundamentally limited by the probability of occurrences. The difference is that in poker, your interactions with other players can have strong mitigating effect on how those occurrences decide each hand. I guess from that perspective, though I consider it much more a game of chance than table poker, online poker is still more of a game of skill than many other chance games.

Sep 24, 2013#27

Gared

I discovered years ago that I have a gambling problem, but I still enjoy it, so I go to a local casino once a year or so and play penny and nickel slots for a few hours and then go home, figuring that regardless of any actual winnings, I've at least entertained myself for 5 or 6 hours for the price of two movies plus concessions.

Sep 24, 2013#28

Charlie Don't Surf

SpecialKO said:
Yes, but it's undeniably based more on the strength of your hand than table poker.

.

nah i completely deny that.

online poker has way more hands per hour, and the more hands played the less variance there is, so q.e.d.

a good player is more likely to win playing three hours online than three hours in person, exponentially more if multi-tabling is involved. i'm not going to say that reading people is worthless, far from it. I'm really good at it! but, online gives you so much more information in the form of betting patterns and statistics like vpip [voluntarily put in pot percentage], number of flops seen, call percentage, etc etc etc

the only way winning players win in poker is the long run, and the way to get there quicker is playing online where the hands per hour is just so so so much higher

Sep 24, 2013#29

Frank

Gilgamesh said:
With everything I've ever marked funny, I find this the funniest

But it is a game of skill.

Sep 24, 2013#30

Bowielee

Wow, Gilgamesh, really, you need to just get a room with Charlie and do it.

Sep 24, 2013#31

Gilgamesh

Bowielee said:
Wow, Gilgamesh, really, you need to just get a room with Charlie and do it.

I would, but I'm a white male. So I'm already the -bad guy- in his eyes. He'd never have me.

Sep 24, 2013#32

SpecialKO

Don't worry, you'll be a minority eventually.

Sep 24, 2013#33

doomdragon6

I actually just came from a casino. I went once yesterday, and once today.

Last night, I went in with $500 and came out $380 ahead, so I was rather elated.

So today, I went to try again, and went in with $500 and lost it all. :|

So, net loss of $120. I'm bummed about it, but I'm lucky to have only made a $120 mistake. One guy I was playing next to said he lost $600 at another casino, then came to this one to try for better luck. He lost another $500 at the table, then left. Then came back and lost more. Then left again. Then came back and lost even more.

He showed me a very good example of what never to become. I would have even understood if he was betting high to possibly recoup what he lost, but he just kept doing the exact same thing (that in my mind seemed very silly).

So, the lesson I learned today was "quit while you're ahead" and "don't press your luck".

Sep 25, 2013#34

Bubble181

Gilgamesh said:
I would, but I'm a white male. So I'm already the -bad guy- in his eyes. He'd never have me.

We all like the bad boy occassionally, no?

Sep 25, 2013#35

Charlie Don't Surf

also I'm straight and not interested in Gilgamesh at all

Sep 25, 2013#36

Bubble181

Charlie Don't Surf said:
also I'm straight and not interested in Gilgamesh at all

"Straight" implies the opposite to be "crooked", much like "right" implies "wrong" on the other side (and yes, left-handedness being "sinister" is because of this very thing!); it's a term that puts down other possiblities as less "straight" and less "correct". DISCRIMINATION. Cis-heterosexual, please. :trolol:

Sep 25, 2013#37

Gilgamesh

Oh shit, I forgot, I'm even MORE evil than previously thought: I'm a STRAIGHT white male.

It's no wonder he won't return my private messages for a rendezvous. Why @Charlie Don't Surf ? Why?!

Sep 25, 2013#38

SpecialKO

Isn't this what "bromance" was supposed to address?

Sep 25, 2013#39

Charlie Don't Surf

Bubble181 said:
"Straight" implies the opposite to be "crooked", much like "right" implies "wrong" on the other side (and yes, left-handedness being "sinister" is because of this very thing!); it's a term that puts down other possiblities as less "straight" and less "correct". DISCRIMINATION. Cis-heterosexual, please.

that's actually a good point

Sep 25, 2013#40

Bowielee

Jesus Christ, what have I done?

Sep 25, 2013#41

blotsfan

Well, you're gay so clearly nothing wrong.

Sep 25, 2013#42

Gilgamesh

SpecialKO said:
Isn't this what "bromance" was supposed to address?

But according everyone, tagging things he posts as funny = wanting him sexually. Haven't you learned that yet?

Bowielee said:
Jesus Christ, what have I done?

Posted something that I was able to use to my amusement?

Sep 25, 2013#43

SpecialKO

Gilgamesh said:
tagging things he posts as funny = wanting him sexually

Well, if that's the case, sometimes you need to....

...take a gamble.

:csi:

Sep 26, 2013#44

Bubble181

SpecialKO said:
Well, if that's the case, sometimes you need to....

...take a gamble.

Please accept my brofist in the spirit it was offered, that being "not fisting you bro!"

Sep 26, 2013#45

Frank

Gilgamesh said:
But according everyone, tagging things he posts as funny = wanting him sexually. Haven't you learned that yet?

It's more the immediate nature of it, most people haven't seen a Charlie post without a funny of yours attached to it for months. It's creepy.

Sep 26, 2013#46

Gilgamesh

Frank said:
It's more the immediate nature of it, most people haven't seen a Charlie post without a funny of yours attached to it for months. It's creepy.

I'm always online and always on the forum. I'm pretty sure my forum time is higher than anyones next to maybe Dave. At home it's always open in a tab on my second monitor. At work it's always open on a tab on my 3rd monitor and at school it's open between my classes. So yeah, that's why the immediate, I see all posts I just find Charlie's the funniest.

Sep 26, 2013#47

Krisken

Gilgamesh said:
I'm always online and always on the forum. I'm pretty sure my forum time is higher than anyones next to maybe Dave. At home it's always open in a tab on my second monitor. At work it's always open on a tab on my 3rd monitor and at school it's open between my classes. So yeah, that's why the immediate, I see all posts I just find Charlie's the funniest.

And if he was trying to be funny that would be less sad.

Sep 26, 2013#48

Frank

Krisken said:
And if he was trying to be funny that would be less sad.

Sad would be a much better word for it than creepy.

Sep 26, 2013#49

Gilgamesh

Krisken said:
And if he was trying to be funny that would be less sad.

Funny enough, I agree. Just not the same way you meant it

@Frank - Almost as much as your replying consistently about my disagrees/Charlie love?

Sep 26, 2013#50

Jax

New study: Charlie and Gilgamesh secretly want gay sex with each other.

Still need some volunteers to check out how many threads are derailed by Gil's passive agressive flirts at Charlie and Charlie's playing-hard-to-get denials, but yeah, something's definitely out there.

Sep 26, 2013#51

Gilgamesh

Jax said:
New study: Charlie and Gilgamesh secretly want gay sex with each other.

Still need some volunteers to check out how many threads are derailed by Gil's passive agressive flirts at Charlie and Charlie's playing-hard-to-get denials, but yeah, something's definitely out there.

Sep 26, 2013#52

SpecialKO

The greatest in-denial forum romance since ~~Chaz~~Mathias and Makare.

Sep 26, 2013#53

Dave

I like gambling. A lot. Like cashing my paychecks and losing it all kind of liking it. I don't gamble any more.

Sep 26, 2013#54

Krisken

SpecialKO said:
The greatest in-denial forum romance since ~~Chaz~~Mathias and Makare.

I think that romance was one sided, tbh.

Sep 26, 2013#55

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
The greatest in-denial forum romance since ~~Chaz~~Mathias and Makare.

Nobody ships the Gas Bandit.

Ok, that's not true. @fade totally shipped the Gas Bandit with JCM.

Sep 26, 2013#56

Gilgamesh

Dave said:
I like gambling. A lot. Like cashing my paychecks and losing it all kind of liking it. I don't gamble any more.

That was adorable btw

Sep 26, 2013#57

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
I think that romance was one sided, tbh.

So, it seems, is this one.

Sep 26, 2013#58

Gilgamesh

SpecialKO said:
So, it seems, is this one.

Sep 26, 2013#59

Bowielee

Gilgamesh said:

Yoink! Saving that one for later.

Sep 26, 2013#60

Dave

Gilgamesh said:
That was adorable btw

Why is my gambling addiction adorable?

Sep 26, 2013#61

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
Why is my gambling addiction adorable?

Because Gilgamesh is unable to turn off the jerk mode.

Sep 26, 2013#62

Gilgamesh

Dave said:
Why is my gambling addiction adorable?

Not even close, I was responding to the attempt to re-rail the conversation. I guess I should have specified.

Ravenpoe said:
Because Gilgamesh is unable to turn off the jerk mode.

About as much as you're unable to turn off assumption mode.

Sep 26, 2013#63

drifter

GasBandit said:
Nobody ships the Gas Bandit.

*surreptitiously slides sketchbook out of view*

Forums