A few days ago I did a post which was a response to Focus on the Family’s talking points against legalizing online gaming. Many of their points harp on sensationalistic claims about how many problem gamblers are at risk. While I took the position that problem gambling was a medical condition which invalidated some of their points about online gaming turning people into problem gamblers, it seems like some researchers at Harvard University have tackled the problem from another angle. According to the PokerNews article:
The study looked at both “fixed-odds” bets (e.g., bets on the outcome of a particular game) and “live-action” bets (e.g., in-game, proposition bets such as which side would have the next corner kick). The fixed-odds bettors averaged placing 2.5 bets of €4 (approx. $5.30 U.S.) every fourth day over an average period of 4 months (from first to last bet) at an average loss of 29% of the amount wagered. The live-action bettors averaged placing 2.8 wagers of €4 every fourth day over an average period of six weeks at an average loss of 18% of the amount wagered. Interestingly, the data showed that “individuals seemed to moderate their behavior based on their wins and losses.” In other words, “as percent lost increased, duration of play, number of bets, bets per day, Euros per bet, and total wagers all decreased.” As the authors point out, such a finding is particularly significant since “a hallmark feature of gambling-related problems might be the continuation of gambling despite adverse consequences.”
So not only are the pro-UIGEA folks generally misguided but a good chunk of their talking points are invalid. The article also points out that the study Rep. Jackass Bachus tried to introduce as evidence of the evils of gambling is a highly selective study with a small sample size compared to this Harvard study which profiled 40,000 gamblers.