[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
...."what is far more likely is that problem gamblers are attracted to online gambling and are amongst the early adopters (availability, annomonymity and speed ofgambling being attractive to problem gamblers)."

I am sure you see why if the arguments are necesary at that level, you've lost already politically. You can't win by saying "It's not more addictive, its just a more effective delivery system for potential addicts".

Video Poker (in a casino/supermarket/bar/7-11) is as close to crack for gamblers as is readily available in Nevada. It gains little to say "Yes, but the population of Nevada is self-selectively skewed toward problem gamblers." or "Yes, but video poker players find their poison more readily than people who are not .... whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are good points. In addition, from my reading of the report unless I missed a good portion of it, the number of on-line gamblers let alone on-line problem gamblers was relatively small when compared to the total population study sample size.

Any attempt to use this study beyond simply blunting some opponets studies is really beyond it's reach IMPO. Anyone reading it to learn something striking about the prelevance of problem gamblers involved in on-line gaming let alone trying to reach a vlaid conclusion to the "addictive nature" of on-line gambling is going to be left wanting.

If I missed something striking please let me know because that is what I was looking for in part from this report.


D$D