Setting Win Limitations

[Frank Kneeland]

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?

I would agree with you, and the research I have been reading would as well. The medical community is only in the last five years beginning to modify the classification of pathological gambler to be less dependent on bank balance.

In reply to your second statement, I was told GA preached this by someone that had gone through the program themselves. It could have been something that was local to the GA chapter he frequented. There is variation between chapters. If you know more I'd love to share notes. My April 7th show had the ex-GA guest.

~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

Could someone tell me how to private message someone on this forum?

[Frank Kneeland]

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..

I'm sorry you think I'm trying to stifle you. I guess it would be pointless to try to convince your of my motives. It seems your mind is already made up.

How about this. If you would like me to explain let me know.

I liked your comment about a doctor nay-saying any psych advice offered by a non doctor. I have sent her samples of my own advice, and more of yours for evaluation, and deleted any references to the author to test the theory. It would be interesting if you were right. I don't rule it out.

~FK

[Rob.Singer]

You're attacking the only thing arci has left in life, and like the other poster said, the addiction begins with living his life on gambling forums. No matter how many doctors are brought in or how many degrees and how much experience they have, they will be wrong and arci will know more than them because he has to know more than them to in order to justify the only reason he has left for living.

Oh, and as we just saw, YOU can't say anything against him and YOU can't argue on the Internet, because he wants that all to himself.

Once you understand how anal this guy is about how impressive he HAS to be on the Internet, you'll see what I've seen for years about how much fun it is poking him for reactions! He's always believed the person who gets in the last word wins. But if you provide proof that professional studies have indeed been done concluding just the opposite, he'll go to his grave telling you why "they" are wrong and why "they" don't know as much as he does about it.

Gee, I think I poked him TWICE!!

[Frank Kneeland]

You're attacking the only thing arci has left in life, and like the other poster said, the addiction begins with living his life on gambling forums. No matter how many doctors are brought in or how many degrees and how much experience they have, they will be wrong and arci will know more than them because he has to know more than them to in order to justify the only reason he has left for living.

Oh, and as we just saw, YOU can't say anything against him and YOU can't argue on the Internet, because he wants that all to himself.

Once you understand how anal this guy is about how impressive he HAS to be on the Internet, you'll see what I've seen for years about how much fun it is poking him for reactions! He's always believed the person who gets in the last word wins. But if you provide proof that professional studies have indeed been done concluding just the opposite, he'll go to his grave telling you why "they" are wrong and why "they" don't know as much as he does about it.

Gee, I think I poked him TWICE!!

Try to set aside your past differences for a moment and look at it from his point of view. He's is convinced he is right. I believe Arci's main issue in this regard is that he is right about so many things this has biased him towards his own judgments to the point where he thinks himself infallible (or nearly). It's quite common, and the problem is that people who think they are always right, often are, just not about everything. His math skills are stellar and he has shown great insight into many things that I agreed with.

In this current situation he is so fixated on the rightness of his words and what he meant, that he's losing sight of how other people are interpreting his words. The advice he gave was good advice FOR HIM. The problem is that he isn't the recipient. People with gambling problems and addictions of any kind are by definition deluding themselves all the time, and jump at anything that could support a belief that they don't have a problem. The problem with what he said was not that it was untrue, the problem was that it was to easy to twist into a justification for someone with justifications as their goal.

I believe this reason Arci doesn't see this is because he isn't reading what he's writing from the POV of someone with a problem trying to convince themselves they don't have one.

Doctors are more familiar with the justification patients use to excuse their behaviors and therefore more able to spot things like well intended advice that if misinterpreted can do more harm than good. I was disappointed that he perceived my desire to protect someone else from potentially harmful information as an attack on him. That was not my intent. I also did not expect him to react defensively. When I've made errors like this in the past myself and they have been pointed out to me, I usually just thanked the person that told me and moved on with my life. That's actually what I was expecting.

Actions and words aside, I still believe Arci is well meaning, just as I believe you are as well Rob.

Both of you are difficult to figure out, but I'm trying.

~FK

[Alan Mendelson]

To send a private message to someone who has posted: go to their post and click on the person's name and a menu should open, including an item that says "private message" with the icon of an envelope. Click on that and you can send a private message. If this doesn't work, let me know.

Also, there is a "task bar" at the top of the page, with a button for "private messages" and you can click on this.

I hope these also appear on the pages of our members. It is possible I am seeing something because I'm a moderator that you are not seeing.

[arcimede$]

I'm sorry you think I'm trying to stifle you. I guess it would be pointless to try to convince your of my motives. It seems your mind is already made up.

How about this. If you would like me to explain let me know.

I liked your comment about a doctor nay-saying any psych advice offered by a non doctor. I have sent her samples of my own advice, and more of yours for evaluation, and deleted any references to the author to test the theory. It would be interesting if you were right. I don't rule it out.

~FK

Well Frank, the first problem is I never provided any advice. By telling the doctor I was giving "advice" you are setting up a situation that doesn't exist. All I did was make general observations. It's called context, Frank. As far as I can tell no one this forum has even asked for advice on gambling addiction. All we were doing is expressing our views on the subject.

If I was going to give advice I would give the same advice I've given Singer many times. Get professional help. The humorous thing is he will have to admit that is precisely what I've always told him.

Frank, I somehow get the feeling you haven't been a longtime internet forum participant. Stating opinions is what people do. You may need to reassess how you are viewing comments.

[arcimede$]

Try to set aside your past differences for a moment and look at it from his point of view. He's is convinced he is right.

Since all I did on this subject is make very general observations, then there's really not much here to analyze. I find it interesting that you haven't responded to my observations by explaining where they might be incorrect. You've stated it is bad advice but it isn't advice at all. You may be too close to the subject matter to understand the difference.

In this current situation he is so fixated on the rightness of his words and what he meant, that he's losing sight of how other people are interpreting his words. The advice he gave was good advice FOR HIM. The problem is that he isn't the recipient.

I hope you see the problem by now. I haven't given any "advice" whatsoever. All I have done is make the observation that if a person is not having any problems associated with their gambling then it really doesn't matter if they have an addiction or not. It appears you have attempted to turn this into much more than it is. For example, I never said anything about a person recognizing their own problems, yet it seems to me that is how YOU interpreted it and proceeded without asking for clarification.

People with gambling problems and addictions of any kind are by definition deluding themselves all the time, and jump at anything that could support a belief that they don't have a problem. The problem with what he said was not that it was untrue, the problem was that it was to easy to twist into a justification for someone with justifications as their goal.

Words can always be misinterpreted. Looks like you have provided an excellent example.

I believe this reason Arci doesn't see this is because he isn't reading what he's writing from the POV of someone with a problem trying to convince themselves they don't have one.

Nope, I'm not. All I did was make a general observation. The determination of whether someone is having problems is another discussion. And, I believe, a different type of discussion with most individuals. It's not a one size fits all kind of situation.

Doctors are more familiar with the justification patients use to excuse their behaviors and therefore more able to spot things like well intended advice that if misinterpreted can do more harm than good. I was disappointed that he perceived my desire to protect someone else from potentially harmful information as an attack on him. That was not my intent. I also did not expect him to react defensively. When I've made errors like this in the past myself and they have been pointed out to me, I usually just thanked the person that told me and moved on with my life. That's actually what I was expecting.

Interesting.

Actions and words aside, I still believe Arci is well meaning, just as I believe you are as well Rob.

Both of you are difficult to figure out, but I'm trying.

Nothing difficult to figure out. Singer is a malignant narcissist. Once you know that, his comments are like reading a textbook description of the affliction. My comments are my opinions based on my experiences ... pretty much like everyone else.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I have a question about this comment you made:

"All I have done is make the observation that if a person is not having any problems associated with their gambling then it really doesn't matter if they have an addiction or not."

My question is wouldn't it be better to identify the addiction before problems develop?

[arcimede$]

Arc, I have a question about this comment you made:

"All I have done is make the observation that if a person is not having any problems associated with their gambling then it really doesn't matter if they have an addiction or not."

My question is wouldn't it be better to identify the addiction before problems develop?

Of course, but that is a different question and, in general, it is much more difficult to identify an addiction before you see how it affects a person. For example, there are lots of smokers that gamble. A good many of them gamble because that is the one place they can smoke legally and socialize. It would be very easy to assume a smoker who already suffers from one addiction, is also addicted to gambling. But, that simply may not be the case. I've seen smokers finally quit smoking and also quit gambling at the same time.

Hence my view is that the focus should be on problems. And then secondarily whether those problems are associated with their gambling. The fact is the solution to their problems may very well be to recognize they have an addiction and work to eliminate the source to their problems.

This view may stem from my own experiences. My job for years was mainly solving problems. Not personal problems, but technical problems. Hence, my focus was always on understanding the problem itself and working backwards to find the cause and solution. It's a process that worked very well for me.

As I said earlier, these kind of things vary significantly from person to person. For example, it's possible a person could gamble to escape from the problems in their life. So, do they have a gambling problem or not? Tough call, you could eliminate the problems in their life and they may quit gambling as it is no longer needed. OTOH, they could have developed an addiction and removing the other problems won't solve anything. There isn't one answer to these kind of situations.

Look, if you could attach a device to a persons brain and it would spit out a diagnosis, then that would be great. But, that device doesn't exist so trying to understand an addiction without any associated problems is pretty much guess-work and probably unnecessary. Look at your own work related case. Should you have found another job because you were addicted to your job? Would that have made your life better?

[Rob.Singer]

Now you know you've got him rattled.....and irritated (good job!). Whenever he replies to every word written line item by line item, you can feel him twitching and itching all the way through! And notice the unusually long post. That's a sign he just can't seem to get the right words out in order to scratch that itch you gave him by challenging his know-it-all delusion. Remember, he knows more than lawyers, doctors. and professionals of any kind. He lives in a real world that's fallen apart, so his only escape is in his virtual world of make-believe. The best part? He's getting a taste of his own "what goes around comes around" medicine!

Like I said, make this guy think you even have the SLIGHTEST doubt that what he believes isn't gospel, and he not only won't be able to sleep at night--he'll twist and turn while waking up to the same old boring life to boot!

Now tell me this fellow isn't more fun to poke than watching Jean Scott try to smile after he latest face lift!!

[redietz]

A couple of notes:

1) I'm old school in that I do not think recent research supercedes what's gone before. In fact, since it hasn't been replicated or appropriately criticized, I take it with a grain of salt. So the recent reports of improved "success" with GA and AA are not to be taken as sudden indications of much of anything.

2) One key idea here is that the burgeoning "it's a disease--fix me" industry has decided that negative affects of a particular behavior (in this case, "gambling") can be defined outside financial considerations. True enough, of course, but this also means the very definition of "gambling addiction" has been expanded (surprise, surprise) so that the alleged newly found success may in fact be due to the expanded population or criteria used to define the "problem." We, US citizens, now are supposed to have 10% gambling addicts, 20% depressed, and on and on.

3) The whole addiction theme has no end. I mean, really, watching five hours a day of TV is an addiction, spending too much on comic books is an addiction, having too much sex is an addiction, and all in the service of what? Businesses that purport to make life better by fixing us somehow. Then we can get into the whole "happiness" industry, because if we're not gloriously happy, we need to be fixed.

Put things in perspective here -- is RVing any "healthier" than sitting at a video poker machine? I have no clue -- and neither, I submit, does anyone else.

"Gambling," as I wrote in a paper given at the National Conference on Gamblng and Risk-Taking back in the 80's, in just a word. Our culture assigns activities to this word for specific reasons. A thousand years from now, nobdoy is going to understand why we lump bingo and football betting under one rubric, and don't include stock trading or buying a house.

[Frank Kneeland]

Well Frank, the first problem is I never provided any advice. By telling the doctor I was giving "advice" you are setting up a situation that doesn't exist. All I did was make general observations. It's called context, Frank. As far as I can tell no one this forum has even asked for advice on gambling addiction. All we were doing is expressing our views on the subject.

If I was going to give advice I would give the same advice I've given Singer many times. Get professional help. The humorous thing is he will have to admit that is precisely what I've always told him.

Frank, I somehow get the feeling you haven't been a longtime internet forum participant. Stating opinions is what people do. You may need to reassess how you are viewing comments.

I have but one year experience as an Internet communicator, so that is a distinct possibility I will take it under advisement. Thank you. If I made this error others could as well, just be aware of that.

~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

Now you know you've got him rattled.....and irritated (good job!). Whenever he replies to every word written line item by line item, you can feel him twitching and itching all the way through! And notice the unusually long post. That's a sign he just can't seem to get the right words out in order to scratch that itch you gave him by challenging his know-it-all delusion. Remember, he knows more than lawyers, doctors. and professionals of any kind. He lives in a real world that's fallen apart, so his only escape is in his virtual world of make-believe. The best part? He's getting a taste of his own "what goes around comes around" medicine!

Like I said, make this guy think you even have the SLIGHTEST doubt that what he believes isn't gospel, and he not only won't be able to sleep at night--he'll twist and turn while waking up to the same old boring life to boot!

Now tell me this fellow isn't more fun to poke than watching Jean Scott try to smile after he latest face lift!!

I would not intentionaly try to "poke" anyone regardless of how much I disliked them or what history we had. I might make an exception if I somehow thought it could help them. I only stepped in when I became concerned that a post he made might be taken as advice and that if it was that advice might have the wrong effect on some.

If I did "poke" someone by accident, or if something I said was taken that way, I would apologize as I have done on other forums before. I would certainly not enjoy it under any circumstances.

I don't even enjoy "winning" arguments unless it somehow helps the person losing. If you doubt this statement consider that I gave up all games, chess, sports, video, etc...in my mid twenties because I did not enjoy beating other people. If I won I felt bad for them. If I lost I felt bad for me. It's why I won't play live poker. All conflict (or games) for me is a lose lose scenario.

I have a BJI newsletter deadline today and will have to wait to respond to any other posts 'till tomorrow.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

What the experts are proving today is in the area of changes in brain chemistry brought about by the act of gambling. Experts are nearing conclusive proof that much of gambling, problem gambling, addiction, or any other way you choose to describe the act is possibly more of a function of the loss of free will in making gambling related decisions due to those induced brain chemistry alterations.

The change in official diagmosis and terminology has implications for insurance providers being required to pay for treatment, which of course is costly for the best and most effective. There will be tremendous opposition from the insurance industry.

There are developing parallels between what happened in the tobacco industry and the gaming industry with gaming about 20 years behind and about at the point where the tobacco executives were still denying altering the product or that it was addictive.

I think the point the Dr. cited by Frank was making was that all problem gamblers originate problem free and at some point could be helped to avoid the loss of free will relating to gambling.

[Rob.Singer]

I like it!--good cop/bad cop

Frank, if "poking" the poor guy didn't help him I wouldn't do it! It gives someone with no hope a reason to run through the forums, fill in his time arguing, denying & responding, and when he's done he can even ponder how his vp addiction got him into the fix he finds himself in these days. I mean, he really REALLY needs to occupy his mind with these things instead of wondering what it would have been like here & now had he been more respectful when he had the opportunity and choice TO BE more respectful of another human being--instead of running around helter-skelter trying to fulfill selfish & unattainable dreams.

[Alan Mendelson]

What the experts are proving today is in the area of changes in brain chemistry brought about by the act of gambling. Experts are nearing conclusive proof that much of gambling, problem gambling, addiction, or any other way you choose to describe the act is possibly more of a function of the loss of free will in making gambling related decisions due to those induced brain chemistry alterations.

The change in official diagmosis and terminology has implications for insurance providers being required to pay for treatment, which of course is costly for the best and most effective. There will be tremendous opposition from the insurance industry.

There are developing parallels between what happened in the tobacco industry and the gaming industry with gaming about 20 years behind and about at the point where the tobacco executives were still denying altering the product or that it was addictive.

I think the point the Dr. cited by Frank was making was that all problem gamblers originate problem free and at some point could be helped to avoid the loss of free will relating to gambling.

Are you saying that the casino industry could be held liable for creating problem gambling? After all everything in a casino is designed to make people play more and more, and to come back. Even when you lose at table games, dealers are instructed to encourage players to "try again?" or offer another marker to those with credit lines. The entire casino/hotel/resort design is based on encouraging play, with major walkways to restaurants and hotel rooms and event centers through the casinos.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

Are you saying that the casino industry could be held liable for creating problem gambling? After all everything in a casino is designed to make people play more and more, and to come back. Even when you lose at table games, dealers are instructed to encourage players to "try again?" or offer another marker to those with credit lines. The entire casino/hotel/resort design is based on encouraging play, with major walkways to restaurants and hotel rooms and event centers through the casinos.

I'm not in a position to make that determination. A more reasonable scenario might be regulations that are "more in one's face" regarding the potential for casual gambling to escalate. I actually like Singapore's regulations that require residents to pay to the government either an annual fee or a single use fee to gamble in their casinos.. I think the amounts are around $2100 USD annually or $100 per visit. Tourists are exempt.

I just think back to when tobacco was glamorized in TV and the movies, when you could smoke in a doctor's office or grocery, and then the Congressional hearings that started with denials, some half-truths, and then all the settlements. The product in some cases was enhanced for the purpose of increasing addiction, I think I remember someone claiming.

It just seems similar particularly given the terminology used by insiders such as "player extinction" and "gamblers' ruin", a term which I believe was credited in a court document to Mark Nicely, a one-time slot designer at IGT, who I believe the document credited with figuring out the problem.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks Lucky for the post, and I sent you a personal message to respond to your questions.

I'm not in favor of a "player tax" and I don't see how a player tax would stop the spread or increase of addicted gambling. I think a player tax hits and hurts everyone, casual players, tourists, casinos -- and yes addicted players too. But I doubt it would have much impact on the addicted players.

Aren't there some states that limit the amount of play per gambler? I think on the riverboat casinos? Perhaps it was limiting play to several hours per day? But even limiting time spent and dollars at risk does not attack the issue of gambling addiction the way I see it.

What I would favor is a simple "gambler's test" that people would have to complete before they are allowed to play. In the test are simple questions such as:

1. the ability to add up "cards" as in blackjack.
2. basic knowledge of the rules of craps i.e. throwing with one hand, hitting the back wall, not sliding
3. knowing that there are different paytables in video poker
4. knowing what the legal blood alcohol level is for driving (this is not a gambling question but a safety question)
5. knowing what the casino's ATM fees are
6. asking the player to write down ahead of time their expected budget for the trip. This is not something that would be enforced but would just make players write it down so they can think about it.

With my "gamblers test" there would be no penalty for wrong answers. But it would be a way to make gamblers think first. Perhaps they have to do it when they get their player's card, or when they visit the cage?

[Lucky(St)Louis]

Oh, in keeping with the thread, let me clarify. I like Singapore's regs as they apply to Singapore. Never said they should be in the U.S. or could apply here. I'm sorry if that was implied.