Setting Win Limitations

[arcimede$]

Well, Arc, now we have a new discussion based on Rob's post: what constitutes addiction? I will admit to one thing: I've been playing video poker longer than any of my marriages lasted.

From what I've read the issue is not one of addiction in any case. That's why the term "gambling problem" is used. Only when gambling lead to specific problems is there a cause for concern.

In fact, it is well recognized that many people are addicted to their jobs. The net result is usually these people advance higher and make more money since they put in extra time working. This may lead to problems at home but I've not read much about this being an issue that is of any concern to the medical community. So, addiction in and of itself is never really the issue.

The question is does gambling lead to problems in your life, if it does, then it should be avoided. If not, then it's not really important.

[Alan Mendelson]

From what I've read the issue is not one of addiction in any case. That's why the term "gambling problem" is used. Only when gambling lead to specific problems is there a cause for concern.

In fact, it is well recognized that many people are addicted to their jobs. The net result is usually these people advance higher and make more money since they put in extra time working. This may lead to problems at home but I've not read much about this being an issue that is of any concern to the medical community. So, addiction in and of itself is never really the issue.

The question is does gambling lead to problems in your life, if it does, then it should be avoided. If not, then it's not really important.

I know that the problem that a relative had was kept hidden from others and apparently from himself as well until it was too late. I would suspect that the problem is that the problem gambler doesn't know they have a problem.

[arcimede$]

I know that the problem that a relative had was kept hidden from others and apparently from himself as well until it was too late. I would suspect that the problem is that the problem gambler doesn't know they have a problem.

Most people have problems admitting their problems no matter what the source. I can think of one particular narcissist that has been in denial of his problem for years.

However, from a purely technical viewpoint the original problem is what needs to be solved. If that involves gambling then the gambling should be stopped.

[Alan Mendelson]

But Arc, the question is -- and I am asking this strictly from a point of discussion -- how does a problem gambler know he has a problem?

I have a problem being not only addicted to my work, but also loving my work. I enjoy being on TV and producing TV. And over the years I've had bosses who have ordered me to take off weekends and to take vacations because I couldn't "get away from a story" or couldn't schedule time off from the job because I didn't want to miss the next "development" in a story.

My classic example was when I covered the Eastern Airlines union problems and the takeover by Texas Air and Frank Lorenzo of Eastern Airlines. In those days (and I admit I was much younger then) I would work 20 hours a day and loved every minute of it. If you told me I had a "problem" I would say I was "devoted to my job."

So how does an addicted gambler know he has a problem before he runs out of money-- or ways to get it?

[arcimede$]

I doubt the understanding is the same in all cases. However, the most obvious case is financial problems. If a person is losing a lot of money gambling and having financial problems then they most likely have a problem. I'm sure there are other ways problems can surface as well, but I'd think this is most likely.

[Frank Kneeland]

But Arc, the question is -- and I am asking this strictly from a point of discussion -- how does a problem gambler know he has a problem?

I have a problem being not only addicted to my work, but also loving my work. I enjoy being on TV and producing TV. And over the years I've had bosses who have ordered me to take off weekends and to take vacations because I couldn't "get away from a story" or couldn't schedule time off from the job because I didn't want to miss the next "development" in a story.

My classic example was when I covered the Eastern Airlines union problems and the takeover by Texas Air and Frank Lorenzo of Eastern Airlines. In those days (and I admit I was much younger then) I would work 20 hours a day and loved every minute of it. If you told me I had a "problem" I would say I was "devoted to my job."

So how does an addicted gambler know he has a problem before he runs out of money-- or ways to get it?

I've been away, but I'm glad to see things settled down (almost). Alan's question sounds to me like something a doctor in the field should be answering, and not active gamblers that hang out on forums (myself included). I'll recuse myself from comment. I have passed the question and its related answers along to a practicing therapist that specializes in addiction treatment, and I will post her comments when I get them back.

~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

It will be several days before I get a full reply from the therapist She's on vacation.

[Frank Kneeland]

From what I've read the issue is not one of addiction in any case. That's why the term "gambling problem" is used. Only when gambling lead to specific problems is there a cause for concern.

In fact, it is well recognized that many people are addicted to their jobs. The net result is usually these people advance higher and make more money since they put in extra time working. This may lead to problems at home but I've not read much about this being an issue that is of any concern to the medical community. So, addiction in and of itself is never really the issue.

The question is does gambling lead to problems in your life, if it does, then it should be avoided. If not, then it's not really important.

FK: I passed this post on to a practicing therapist Here's her reply:

I believe this advice is very dangerous, because it would encourage people to continue gambling "until they had a problem". It ignores the issue of motivation, which for me is always the biggest factor in anything. (Yes I know what you are doing, but why are you doing it?)

If taken, this advice would completely eliminate the possibility of early detection and treatment. One usually doesn't wait for people to jump off cliffs before helping them.

It also ignores current research that clearly shows that successful self diagnosis of gambling problems is not a valid strategy. This advice more or less gives the questioner free reign to define what is and is not a problem, and never suggests that they seek a professional outside opinion. Only with years of training and experience is any kind of accurate diagnosis in matters of this nature possible.

Self-diagnosis is usually a form of denial, enabling the addict (be it gambling or any form of addiction) to continue his path of destruction. Only when he/she is willing to see that this is a relationship which basically is in control, can he be on the path of recovery.

~Randi Farrell Vazque

Randi is on. randimft@blogspot.com
Her website pertains mostly to her marriage & family counseling-but she is also licensed as a alcohol & drug counselor- which includes all addictions. I have known her for 28 years.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks for getting the comment from Randi Vasquez. Is it then correct to say that you cannot expect a problem gambler to know he has a problem?

[Rob.Singer]

Excellent information. But how would one get through to a certain someone who believes everyone else is perpetually wrong if they don't think like he does, and who lives his life in a constant state of denial?

[arcimede$]

Frank, the problem with Randi's answer is it doesn't address my comment. If a person is not experiencing any problems then exactly what is it that is going to lead her (or anyone) to a correct diagnosis?

Note I never said anything about "self diagnosis". I simply stated there were no problems. No means no. What I believe Randi is saying is that the gambler themselves may not know they have problems. That may be true but has nothing to do with what I stated.

Frank, I'm surprised you did not see the difference in the two situations.

[Frank Kneeland]

Thanks for getting the comment from Randi Vasquez. Is it then correct to say that you cannot expect a problem gambler to know he has a problem?

I would absolutely say that based on both what she said and what I've read, a problem gambler would not be aware of their condition, at least until they bottomed out. For problem gamblers that are currently winning, either due to random chance or correct play, they would likely never get the help they need and the medical community is largely blind to their plight.

I have had 3 radio shows with Dr. William McCown where we discussed gambling addiction as it applies to professional gamblers that are consistently winning. He categorically stated that winning or losing is not the final arbiter of whether or not a person has a problem, but that the medical community has trouble diagnosing gambling problems in people that are winning, and that treatment is rarely sought out. It is a known issue and they are trying to fix it.

It's ludicrous to think of any addiction as a financial problem, especially one that due to random perturbation could give false negatives. It is even more absurd to try to classify a mental problem by how much money a person has.

The standard sociological consensus is:
Winning = No Problem
Losing = Possible Problem

Both of these statements have no basis in fact and are not accepted by the medical community in any way. Don't believe the party line.

~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, the problem with Randi's answer is it doesn't address my comment. If a person is not experiencing any problems then exactly what is it that is going to lead her (or anyone) to a correct diagnosis?

Note I never said anything about "self diagnosis". I simply stated there were no problems. No means no. What I believe Randi is saying is that the gambler themselves may not know they have problems. That may be true but has nothing to do with what I stated.

Frank, I'm surprised you did not see the difference in the two situations.

I was not the one interpreting your comments. If someone has gotten a professional medical opinion that they have no problem, then yes, no problem would be the likely diagnosis. As far as I remember you made no mention of getting a professional opinion.

Passing on exactly what you wrote, a practicing therapist felt it was not only bad advice, but dangerous advice. What you meant, is not as relevant as how people interpreted what you wrote.

Why do you seem to think this has anything to do with what I think? I think neither of us should be offering any serious advice on gambling addiction because we are not doctors. Why don't you stop for one bloody second making this about you, and let the doctor's advice stand.

If you'd like to discuss any of the things I added in my posts written by me, I'd be happy to debate them with you if you feel it would be productive.

[Rob.Singer]

Frank, the problem with Randi's answer is it doesn't address my comment. If a person is not experiencing any problems then exactly what is it that is going to lead her (or anyone) to a correct diagnosis?

Note I never said anything about "self diagnosis". I simply stated there were no problems. No means no. What I believe Randi is saying is that the gambler themselves may not know they have problems. That may be true but has nothing to do with what I stated.

Frank, I'm surprised you did not see the difference in the two situations.

As I said, this guy is smarter than everyone, he cannot be told anything by anyone - even professionals - without working in a spin on how no one could have possibly understood what he said, and he will never stop being anal about why people can't see him as he sees himself. He would rather drown himself than give someone the last word or admit he lives in denial. An expert/admonisher/true believer in every sense of the word.

Now sit back and enjoy as he comes stumbling back on to "set the record straight"!

[arcimede$]

Thanks for getting the comment from Randi Vasquez. Is it then correct to say that you cannot expect a problem gambler to know he has a problem?

I think that is a little simplistic.

I'm sure many addicted gamblers know they have problems. Some just can't help themselves and have little control over their actions.

Then, there are a set of gamblers who know they are addicted and readily admit it and they understand the situation and control it enough to minimize the impacts.

Next, you have a set of gamblers who don't know they are addicted. They may or may not be experiencing problems, but that is the only really meaningful point. If they are not experiencing any problems then the addiction is not a big deal. Of course, that could change in the future but then what can't. I doubt there are many people who would seek help when they aren't experiencing problems. If they are experiencing problems then they are problem gamblers by definition.

So, there are many possibilities.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

I doubt the understanding is the same in all cases. However, the most obvious case is financial problems. If a person is losing a lot of money gambling and having financial problems then they most likely have a problem. I'm sure there are other ways problems can surface as well, but I'd think this is most likely.

Financial problems are probably the least reliable indicator of a gambling problem. Do you think if someone like Bill Gates loses 50k/day he would not have a gambling problem? Gambling problems are related to where your brain is, not your body. For anyone who lives and breathes gambling forums, that is a possible indicator of a gambling problem. Has nothing to do with winning or losing.

And Frank, I'm puzzled by your GA analysis. I don't for a second agree with you that they tell people that they can't win. Where is that?

[arcimede$]

I was not the one interpreting your comments. If someone has gotten a professional medical opinion that they have no problem, then yes, no problem would be the likely diagnosis. As far as I remember you made no mention of getting a professional opinion.

Passing on exactly what you wrote, a practicing therapist felt it was not only bad advice, but dangerous advice. What you meant, is not as relevant as how people interpreted what you wrote.

Why do you seem to think this has anything to do with what I think? I think neither of us should be offering any serious advice on gambling addiction because we are not doctors. Why don't you stop for one bloody second making this about you, and let the doctor's advice stand.

If you'd like to discuss any of the things I added in my posts written by me, I'd be happy to debate them with you if you feel it would be productive.

Frank, all doctors are fallible. I happen to know this from many experiences. I guess that makes me a little less appreciative of the position. If you want to give all doctors, even ones in soft sciences, god given talents, then you are making a big mistake. They are just as fallible as anyone else.

BTW, I'm not giving anyone professional advice or even "serious advice". I'm just stating an opinion. I find it rather silly that you would take an internet forum comment and pass it by anyone. That is beyond my comprehension, personally. What did you think would come of it? I know, you wanted them to disagree with my comment, which they did by redefining what I stated. Now you want to use that to tell me to shut up.

"What you meant, is not as relevant as how people interpreted what you wrote."

And that, Frank, is irrelevant. I can only state my opinion. I can't make people understand it. I suspect the good doctor would have objected to ANYTHING by a non-professional. Or, don't you see the conflict of interest in the response? The doctor redefined what I said and then objected to that redefinition.

Sorry, but the internet is where people comment. You can disagree with me all you want and that is fine. And, you can tell me to shut up. But, I am free to do whatever I please. So, better luck next time in your obvious attempt to stifle me..

[arcimede$]

Financial problems are probably the least reliable indicator of a gambling problem. Do you think if someone like Bill Gates loses 50k/day he would not have a gambling problem? Gambling problems are related to where your brain is, not your body.

Sorry, but I disagree. There are all kinds of addictions in this world. If the addictions do not cause the person any problems in their life, then the addiction is not a big deal. I think you are equating "gambling problem" with "addiction". They are not the same in my mind. An addiction is the brain problem. How it impacts ones life determines if it causes any other problems (those would be gambling problems).

[Lucky(St)Louis]

no problem arci! Btw, I read that SportsIllustrated blurb about your feat awhile back and never said congrats for that, unitl now. Congrats!

[arcimede$]

no problem arci! Btw, I read that SportsIllustrated blurb about your feat awhile back and never said congrats for that, unitl now. Congrats!

Thanks, although "awhile back" may be a rather big understatement.