Printable View
I suppose the Doctor could be selectively presenting data to support a desired conclusion, but I doubt he would be saying anything in an open, government hearing that would run afoul of an ethics code and put his many jobs in jeopardy. He's have to be a loon and I don't think he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I'm afraid I'd be in deep politics to give you what I think is the root cause. Many first time home buyers were just caught up in that "scenario". However the people who went out and bought multiple homes because they could were greedy and looking for a fast buck and contributed more than just a single foreclosed home. Much different situation than a first time buyer who bought their primary residence at the wrong time. I can't speak for people who lied about income and bought homes they never could make the payments on more than the 2 years they thought it might take to sell for a profit. They were wrong, at least twice. I lost money, too, but it was my only residence and I lived there 8 years. Lost the drop in selling price like many.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I think the doctor stated "area", so technically he was correct. However, the conclusion he wanted, that cocaine and gambling are equivalent, is non supportable with today's brain technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis
I remember the speculative bubble in Miami housing in the early 1980s where the speculators (gamblers) lost their shirts. I remember how they would like up the day before sales centers would open for new projects to be the first in line to put down deposits on new construction... and a year or two later when prices dropped they were crying and begging for relief from their bad bet. Because that's what real estate speculators do-- they bet on the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis
But until recently real estate gamblers were held in high esteem because they won their bets for the most part.
But I don't think that real estate gamblers will ever get the evil eye that casino gamblers get.
Maybe there's money to be made, or we like to look for answers to illogical behavior which carries a negative impact on individuals and/or society as seen from a collectively "right" POV, based on both the subjective and objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I think too many people who view this video miss the point by comparing a cocaine user to a gambler. The purpose of the video seems to be about positive reinforcement leading to repeat the stimulus, even when the consequences can be undesirable.
However, that is how the brain operates at almost all levels. It stems from the survival instinct. If something turns out to be good, then repeat, keep doing this and your survival chances improve. If a person is complimented on the shoes they are wearing it's normal for that person to wear those shoes more often. I'd suggest the same areas of the brain are activated when the person is receiving the compliment. Does that mean wearing shoes is equivalent to cocaine usage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky(St)Louis
I passed on the video to my Friend and thrice radio guest Dr. William McCown. He is not very negative on gambling and takes a much more middle ground perspective on the issue. I'll post his comments when I get them back.
I watched the video again... and again... and again. And here is what I take away from it:
1. Winning at gambling has the same response in the brain as giving more cocaine to a cocaine addict. "Coke and gambling in the brain do the same thing in the brain."
2. The Doctor reports that a normal brain when winning at gambling "looks" like a brain that is high on cocaine.
I have no problem with those two comments because if that's what the research shows then that's what the research shows. But then he puts on the big spin, or twist, to make a political statement:
3. "When you are taking tax money from gambling, think about that normal brain that looks like it's high on cocaine."
My problem with point #3 is that a normal brain might look like it's high on cocaine, but does that mean the results, actions, mental health of the individual, social consequences of the two, will be the same?
Then the Doctor throws in another emotional issue which really has nothing to do with gambling. In his final statement he says:
4. "Please think seriously about if we should also legalize certain drugs..." and then he mentions meth and cocaine "if we should go forward with this gambling initiative."
Well, hold on here. The debate at the time was about gambling and not legalizing drugs. What he did in his appearance before this panel was to take a highly charged issue about legalizing drugs and put it on the same level as expanding gambling. Frankly, I take the Doctor's comments as being all political using references to science to tug at the emotional fear of drugs being legalized.
There is another time this technique was used. It was about legalizing abortion. And the argument was that if abortion is legalized the next step would be for society to stop giving medicines to elderly people who are ill.
I'd just like to agree with you. Even though the research does show how certain drugs effect the brain are similar to how gambling effects the brain, the activities are not the same or equal. For starters ingesting a drug is more obviously bad to the person doing it. For second most street drugs come with impurities that are as bad if not worse than the drug itself. This gives gamblers the ability to always get the pure stuff as I don't believe it is possible to "cut" gambling with additives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There are tons more differences that I'm sure are all applicable. That having been said, the similarities are no less disturbing for me.
It is worth noting that the study compared cocaine addicts on cocaine with gambling addicts on gambling. Other studies that used a random sampling of test subjects did not get similar levels of correlation.
Neither cocaine or gambling effect non-addicts ubiquitously.
~FK
I reviewed the video again and there was no comment made about "addicted gamblers" in the video. In fact, the term "healthy individuals" was used for the "monetary gambling task."Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
Yes I know he said that. However the research I read about was not done with healthy individuals. He may be referring to a different study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So again, what's the point? He's putting a political spin on scientific research and leading people to fear that expanding gaming could lead to legalizing drugs. Ridiculous. Just like saying if abortion is legalized the next thing is to withhold medication from the elderly so they will die.
No, what he's saying is that for some gambling can be as bad as drugs and the research is on his side. What I've read on the subject would suggest that gambling is actually worse for those that it effects. Unlike cocaine its effects are not as uniform and require mental risk factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What he did was spin the data to cover a larger demographic. Gambling does not effect everyone like a drug. But for those that it does, it's just as bad if not worse.
I have talked to actual addicts (drugs and gambling) and they have stated without hesitation that for them gambling was the hardest of their addictions to beat.
No Frank. What he did was spin scientific research into a political statement. That's exactly what he did. Please don't let your personal bias of disliking gambling to get in the way of seeing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
There are plenty of good arguments about gambling and addition, but this one was just a way to spin public opinion by picking "convenient facts" to fit the argument. It's what lobbyists do well.
And what offends me the most is that instead of presenting info about addictiveness of gambling-- which I would not object to-- he raises the issue that expanding gambling would lead to legalization of drugs. That is an absurd argument.
I'm going to reply back here to what I believe is the significance of the research the Doctor referenced as it pertains to the spirit of the findings regarding gambling. I believe the info will be used this way. In the context of the hearing, this had to do with MA legalizing some form of casinos to keep MA money in MA. The same thoughts had by governments in PA, MD, many other states.
I think we agree slots make the most money for the casinos. The trends in slots have been increases in hit frequency, up to 60% is not unheard of. The machines will call it a win when it returns less than the player bet. Not a win in my book. Manufacturers like WMS make machines that go crazy and say "big win" when it's not. All these not so subtle trends are telling the player they're "winning" when they're not really.
I have read volumns on the subject, have archived articles to the hilt, I'm a huge follower of John Wilson, aka The Slot Mathemagician and author of "Slot Math (can be fun)", follow the ACEME online mag closely, and am confident that this kind of research in the video is addressing this type of gambling.
If machines are made that exploit this human reaction to experience "the win" when it's not a win, then yes there's the problem. Because the player is unaware, as the doctor puts it, that their "free will" is being manipulated/compromised.
I had some time tonight to think about this video some more. I agree that the Doctor has reported on findings that associate gambling with drug addiction. I don't dispute that. I agree that gambling can be as addictive as drugs and perhaps more so because those addicted to gambling do not feel the immediate consequences that drug addiction presents.
The objection that I am presenting goes beyond the point about gaming being addictive -- like drugs. The objection I have regards the political spin given by the Doctor in his testimony before that panel in Massachusetts specifically his inference that expanding gaming in that state could lead to legalizing drugs.
So to be clear, yes, I agree about the addictive risks of gaming. And I agree that the casinos create an environment (and as Lucky pointed out the machine makers do too) that can increase the lure of gaming and the risk of addiction.
I hope you didn't confuse my objection to the political statement by the Doctor as an objection to the idea that gaming can be as addictive as drugs.
And now, getting back to the original topic:
Since most of us agree that gaming can be addictive, doesn't this strengthen the idea of leaving the casino when a win goal is met because less time in the casino decreases the chance of being addicted to gaming?
If the casino designs an environment to entice you, and the game makers design machines to entice you, and the table game staff is trained to entice you to keep playing, isn't any strategy that makes you leave the casino sooner rather than later a good tool in fighting the danger of addiction? So if following a win goal (and loss limit) accomplishes that, shouldn't we adhere to the "win goal" strategy as beneficial economically and for fighting addiction?
The only people I've ever heard not believe in win/loss limits are a few AP/VP players. Since those games are harder to find and have extreme skill requirements, an exit strategy is important to most all other players.
I think John Robson had a column yesterday that told people that essentially leaving after a win won't change your lifetime results. I find that irresponsible which is why I read those guys for entertainment.
In the video, the Doctor doesn't say that legalized gambling could lead to legalized drugs. In his last sentence he asks if the citizens don't support legalizing meth/coke, yet do support legalizing casino gambling, if they can see a conflict based on research.
I had a follow-up post touching on the interview with Alan and VegasVic, John Robson's column from a day or 2 ago, the concept of a distinct session vs a person's lifetime of gambling as one long session, the idea that VP experts probably consider slots too crazy to talk about, the fact that video slots are what most people in NA casinos play and probably to a lesser degree in Vegas, that I believe win limits and exit strategies are useful and can minimize just one potentially negative aspect of problem gambling, that in the old days of dollar and quarter slots it was possible to have session-ending wins, that the new video slots have billions of combinations in their cycle and have removed the mid-range high wins, that every book I've read since 1990 on gambling has had a money management chapter, that these books probably furthered the "session" concept by suggesting upon arrival gamblers divide their entire bankroll into daily amounts so they don't lose it all on the first day......................
But when I hit the enter key for a new paragraph all was lost. So now I'm back to what I already knew, always use a copy and paste for any long response.
So, I'm not an expert, I don't argue or get mad, I enjoy discussing concepts not the people behind them, and I keep an open mind.
However, I would get mad if some of the things I've seen on other boards were to happen to me. Thanks for keeping this one civilized.
First off I was agreeing with that I thought he was presenting the information with a negative spin. Where I disagree is where you seem to think he was saying, "expanding gambling would lead to legalization of drugs". What I believe he was saying is that expanding gambling would be LIKE LEGALIZING DRUGS. The key word here is "like". I'm using it, he did not. The research says that they are in fact very similar. Very similar is not the same. And he should have been clearer about this, which is why I agree he put negative spin on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
His exact words were, "please think seriously about whether we should also legalize certain drugs of abuse".
He makes no mention that one would LEAD to the other. I believe his intent was to say considering one is LIKE considering the other.
If you take it out of context it actually sounds like he thinks we should legalize drugs.
One thing is certain, he worded it very badly and needs a speech writer.
Alan asked that we return to the original thread topic of win goals. The reason they are effective for some people in giving them "an exit strategy" is because those same people did not have "a logical entrance strategy".
No one can or would dispute the effectiveness of tourniquets in stopping blood flow from injury, but one might object to their use in treating self inflicted wounds. The issue here is the same.
If you have a proper logical reason to enter a casino and play, there is no need for a confabulated illogical reason to leave. If the only effect of win goals was to reduce gambling then I would have no objection to them. The problem is that they also have a secondary reinforcement effect to make people that are losing overall feel like they are wining sometimes, without actually effecting net results.
Clear goals when entering a casino are a VERY good idea. Those goals should have nothing to do with random fluctuations and should hold true regardless of results or else you are opening up yourself to behavior reinforcement and manipulation by the very sorts of things we know game designers and casinos do to encourage play.