Problem Gambling Unchanged in UK

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a few early questions before i set about reading the whole thing.

Was the sample size all adults?
How did they select the sample? How careful were they to go GP and not just gamblers, or people who may be less likely to gamble?
Is their a rational basis for designating someone a problem gambler? We do need a good definition for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The full methodology is in the report but essentially the asked 9000+ adults selected randomnly by household. They were asked to participate face to face in their own homes. They completed the surveys in private and in confidence. Participation rates were very good 63% of households and 81% of eleigible adults (over sixteen). This was the same method as 1999 - it misses a few, the homeless, those in prisons and those in institutions as they don't have a private household address but not a biggie.

They used two definitions of problem gambler, the two most widely used and accepted pshychology based definitions - one showed 0.5% problem gamblers the other 0.6%.

This is the biggest, most thorough piece of research to date. It is very important that the findings are that increased Internet gambling and far more Fixed Odd Betting Terminals (FOBTs) (essentially electronic rulette etc in every high street bookmaker) more bookmaker offices, more casinos and the ending of the 24hour membership rule for casinos in the UK has not led to ANY more problem gamblers. The total operators win has gone from $14bn to $20bn over the period (in line with increased consumer spending overall) and NOBODY extra has had problems!

The problem gambler will always gamble, the regulatory regime or access does not create their problem, they have it anyway.

Also the activities most loved by problem gamblers are not Poker or online gambling - FOBTs, Spread Betting and betting exchanges were all more attractive to problem gamblers than those gambling online. The figure for those who do gamble online though is 7% of participants. assuming they play more I guess we could say one guy per full ring has a problem. This should be further diluted as online gambling goes more mainstream.

The demographcs are also interesting. the problem gambler tends to earn less, be male, smoke, drink, be in poorer health..... The poker player tends to earn more and be better educated than the typical problem gambler.

[Richas]

Having got to page 111 of the report I have found an interesting item on attitudes to gambling in the UK. They asked about 14 statements and asked people to say what they thought of them from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

They then scored them so that a score above 3.0 was pro gambling and a score below 3 anti gambling. The survey was designed to be able to be used anywhere in the English speaking world.

There were only two statements where the scores were pro gambling!

[ QUOTE ]
People should have the right to gamble whenever they want - 3.38

[/ QUOTE ]
and
[ QUOTE ]
It would be better if gambling were banned altogether - 3.20

[/ QUOTE ]

The worst result was
[ QUOTE ]
There are too many opportunities to gamble nowadays - 2.0

[/ QUOTE ]

This strongly suggests that the civil liberties argument is the best line to take in the UK. It would be very interesting to see how these 14 questions were answered in the US - maybe the PPA could pay for a survey the results whatever they are would let the US media run with the story that the UK has found that allowing online gambling does not increase problem gambling.

[MiltonFriedman]

Be prepared for the following negative comments..... Your OP mistates that problem gambling has not increased. Rather, the survey at most says that the RATE of problem gambling is not affected. This does not mean there aren't MORE, due to the growth of Internet exposure, just that the rate at which people develop problems is unchanged.

The most you could say is that this survey seems to indicate that Internet gambling is no more addictive than any other form.