ESPN Show E 60

Legislurker · #1 10-23-2007, 07:21 PM

Anyone watching this garbage? Its sports betting is the spawn of Satan on ESPN now. Maybe they want to fire Hank Goldberg or give the Gold Sheet that sponsorship fee back from last year. Disgusting moralist hypocritical pigs.

title edited by 4_2_it based on OP's later post

Legislurker · #2 10-23-2007, 07:23 PM

WTF, a MILLION kids have a gambling "problem" and need treatment? National Council on Problem Gambling is supplying numbers. We need to light up ESPN's phones tomorrow. DEMAND some corrections and clarifications. I am so [censored] livid right now.

Jussurreal · #3 10-23-2007, 08:18 PM

Yet ESPN radio runs ads for tout services, and every sunday the guys pick against the spread. Also, Mike and Mike are always picking games against the spread. Hypocricy is right.

repulse · #4 10-23-2007, 09:59 PM

I didn't see the broadcast in question and don't know the context this statistic was used in, but it doesn't strike me as TOO far off, necessarily... 300 million Americans, ~1% of people have gambling problems, a loose definition of "kids" that encompasses all college students. Looks like about a million.

Of course saying "ONE MILLION KIDS (dr. evil finger gesture)!" makes the problem seem a lot bigger than saying "1% of the population". And I have no doubt that the context that it was put in would have made me pretty livid too.

Legislurker · #5 10-23-2007, 10:55 PM

In 1999, more than one-fourth of the total population (28%) was enrolled in school. Approximately 8.4 million children were enrolled in nursery school or kindergarten, 32.9 million in elementary school, 15.9 million in high school, and 15.2 million in college or graduate school.

Thats the best number I can get, and they said explicitly one million college students with a severe enough gambling problem to require treatment. Over a million is 8-10% and thats such a gross [censored] lie. I have the flamiest letter to Jeremy SChapp going, I am having reduce the number times I say [censored] and refer to the shame his dead father must feel for such a douchebag of a child before I send it. And the producers at ESPN need to be contacted for such a GROSS lie.
I had to cut out poker tonight im so angry.

repulse · #6 10-23-2007, 11:21 PM

Hm... yeah, you're right, that is high, I thought more of our population was in school.

I'm checking out their site now, from their FAQ:
"How widespread is problem gambling in the U.S.?
2 million (1%) of U.S. adults are estimated to meet criteria for pathological gambling in a given year. Another 4-8 million (2-3%) would be considered problem gamblers; that is, they do not meet the full diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling, but meet one of more of the criteria and are experiencing problems due to their gambling behavior. Research also indicates that most adults who choose to gamble are able to do responsibly."

This has just gotta be a fairly loose definition of "problem gambler". If 10 million people in the US are affected, 10% of them could be in college (versus 5% of the total US population being in college).

On the bright side, their front page links to the recent pro-regulation anti-prohibition Bloomberg article: http://www.ncpgambling.org/i4a/pages...ils.cfm?id=102

Legislurker · #7 10-23-2007, 11:31 PM

My apologies the show is E 60. Been bombarded with espn360 ads recently so i put it in the title by mistake. If it gets YouTubed, someone set up a link, I want to write out the [censored] said verbatim.

Ace0fSpades · #8 10-24-2007, 12:32 AM

Question: how is problem gambling being defined?

Lostit · #9 10-24-2007, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Question: how is problem gambling being defined?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a big issue here. These "organizations" that "help" problem gamblers have everything to gain by saying that many people have issues here, because it then increases the perceived importance of the organization.

One particular example that I've personally seen, is from Alcoholics anonymous. They post tests online that allow people to determine, through 10 easy questions, whether or not you have a problem. I took the test and based on my answers, it determined that I have a serious problem that I need to seek help for. The only issue is that I don't do any drugs at all, and can count the number of alcoholic drinks I've had in the past three years, on a single hand. Additionally, I was never a problem drinker prior to that either. This makes me wonder as to true intentions of exercises like this. Help the people who need it or simply increase membership and bring in more cash?

I would bet that the criteria for the problem gamblers goes like this:

1.) Have you ever placed a bet?
2.) Has anyone in your family tree ever placed a bet?

If so, you have a problem (according to them)

According to Focus on the Family, they say that 15 million Americans have a gambling problem and quote the Annenburg (sp?) study for proof. The only issue is that the Annenburg study says that 15 million Americans have placed a wager at some point in their life. So I guess "place a wager at some point in your life" equates to "problem gambler" in their view.

Its not hard to see how these statistics become very "inaccurate" and the criteria becomes a VERY important piece of this discussion.

repulse · #10 10-24-2007, 02:13 PM

The common methods of defining "problem gambler" are often loose. The most glaring evidence is the "20 questions" that Gamblers Anonymous provides:
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/20questions.html

Consider a professional poker player approaching these questions. #12 is ALWAYS true for any sort of professional gambler/investor. #3 is also almost always true if other people are aware that you are a professional poker player, and it's reflective of other people, not you. #5 is not a huge stretch; if you're playing poker for income, then yeah, it's what you're doing to get money with which to pay debts. Most pro poker players will also answer yes to #14, and #8 and #10 wouldn't be too much of a stretch for some pros, depending on their staking situation and game selection methods.

So that's 3-6 "yes" answers already for a professional poker player that has NO sort of actual problem gambling issues. GA says "Most compulsive gamblers will answer yes to at least seven of these questions"... of course, this the opposite direction that they are implying with these questions (not everyone who answers 7+ of these with "yes" is a compulsive gambler), but who would read it that way?

Bottom line is, any classification of "problem gambler" that comes from a list of warning signs like this is capturing too many people without problems, as well as people who don't actually have gambling problems but may have fallen victim to some of these shortcomings once under certain circumstances.