7 ms·
Having worked with data analytics in problem gambling for ten years, your dismissal of the addictiveness of these games is either uninformed or rationalized, mo
by halhen 9y ago
Having worked with data analytics in problem gambling for ten years, your dismissal of the addictiveness of these games is either uninformed or rationalized, most likely both.
Recent research in Sweden shows that some 75% of online casino turnover are from what can be loosely described as moderate risk gambling (PGSI3+) and approximately 50% from problem gambling (PGSI8+). Similarly about 25% of regular (monthly) players are problem gamblers. Of those who start playing slots monthly, 10% develop gambling problems within a year.
These are bad numbers. Really bad. And they match my experience from million-players-+ databases of actual gambling data.
The most significant marker to predict gambling problems is the amount wagered, say per month. The more someone plays, the higher the risk of that person having gambling problems. About 10% of players make up 80% of the turnover; about 0.1% about 10%. The Pareto principle at play, sure, but combined with the former it basically says that you can't trust the industry for advice on problem gambling.
This is not your safe-little-hobby thing, and the amount players who really enjoy them are much, much, much fewer than you make it sound. The majority of the industry's revenue come from people who would like to stop but can't. This is by any useful definition neither rational nor voluntary. The main claim of the industry is "informed choice" and the users' responsibility to take control, despite loss of control being the very definition of the illness.
This is another tobacco-industry-like example of society slowly realizing the hidden costs being pushed by a powerful industry to unknowing and often vulnerable third parties.
- smallstepforman 9y agoHuman psychology studies are a tricky thing, where everyone only focuses on data which matches their preconceived notions. I'm sure that some university group has researched the cost of fashion addiction, music addiction, car addiction, holiday addiction etc. yet no-one is talking about the social cost of fashion/collections/other vices people may have. There was a large Casino court case in Australia a couple of months ago and the "experts" (if they can be called that) couldn't prove that gambling was an addictive activity, since a large portion of playerswho participated in 'gambling activities' could not be classified as addicted. Since the prosecution couldn't prove the slot machines were addictive, the case against the Casino was dropped (lots of expert testimony ended up being dismissed).
- nickevershed 9y agoWhat's your source for this? The only large court case involving a casino in Australia that I know of is the Crown and Aristocrat case, and the judgement hasn't actually been handed down yet.
- halhen 9y agoWell, Gambling Disorder is a recognized psychological diagnosis in DSM 5[0], so I guess the reader will have to weigh the credibility of the industry's claims vs all the other evidence around. Also, from your comments I assume you rarely meet a representative sample of your customers. I did, and that experience ALSO matched my other claims. You do you of course, and I know where you're coming from: I too built gambling software for five years before I went to work with problem gambling. If integrity is important to you though, you should read up on the subject (Addictive by design is a good book), meet some of your customers, and take your own and your company's self-interest biases into account. [0] https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gambling-disorder/what-is-gambling-disorder https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gambling-disord...
- intended 9y agoHow do you get into the gambling disorder (?)/ problem gambling side of things? That sounds more like a task for healthcare than tech - making it all the more interesting to understand.
- halhen 9y agoI took a job in a data analytics firm, which had the national Swedish gambling operator as customer. The idea was to predict which players were at risk of developing gambling problems using ML. Backing this was also a team of psychologists. (I left about a year ago, so I'm writing in the past tense below.) As it turns out, the task became to identify those who are at risk today from gambling data, which is relatively easy to do probabilistically with actionable precision. From here, the next step was to figure out if the person wanted help to change, which also is surprisingly easy to do by just asking. This is by the way also to the industry's excuse that "we shouldn't tell adults what to do!". When asked, on a gambling site, a majority of those with gambling problems SAY that they would like to change, but aren't able to. Then it's no longer about telling people how to behave, but instead helping those who ask for help. But by not asking, the industry can get away with "we shouldn't tell..." The really hard nut to crack was to give those who want but aren't able to. It's definitely not just about telling them -- most know, _and take responsibility for_, that they do destructive things. Normative feedback (this is how much others play) seemed to work on a mid-term. Calling people also did some positives; many were relieved that somebody saw them and that they finally could talk to somebody, very few got annoyed. But as a first approximation, fighting problem gambling is still an unsolved problem.