'Responsible gambling' is a dangerous ploy
by Willie Cheng
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var fontIndex = 2; var fontSize = new Array('0.63em', '0.69em', '0.75em', '0.88em', '1em', '1.13em'); </SCRIPT>
Recently, I attended a forum on responsible gambling and gaming.
The term "responsible gambling" refers to judicious engagement in games of chance.
One forum speaker explained the concept well with a diagram of three boxes, from "no gambling" to "healthy gambling" to "problem gambling".
Responsible gambling is depicted as the middle stage, where one gambles moderately without adverse consequences from going overboard and becoming obsessed with gambling.
The forum discussed how the industry can promote responsible gambling. For gambling operators, this is known as "responsible gaming", which covers areas such as codes of conduct, programmes for vulnerable players, ethical marketing and fair gaming.
As I listened, I wondered if gambling can, indeed, be responsible. How can a person be responsible if he engages in an activity where the dice are loaded against him, knowing that he will lose more than he can win, on average and in the long run?
If the amount spent is small, it might well be affordable but still irresponsible, even if mildly so. After all, no one would invest, say, in a stock, if it was guaranteed he would lose money on it eventually.
However, there is one situation when casino gambling can be considered responsible: When the odds are clearly on the side of the gambler. In some games such as blackjack, the odds change as the cards are dealt even though, overall, the odds favour the house.
A very skilled player, especially one who "counts" the cards that have previously appeared, can make more winning decisions based on mental computations of the ongoing odds.
It is hard to imagine casinos welcoming such players who engage in what is more "advantage playing" than just gambling. Casino processes and staff training aim to identify and discourage, or ban, such players.
The philosophy of responsible gambling, as proposed by the industry, seems to be: Gamble responsibly, but do gamble. This sounds like the safe sex approach: If you cannot be good, be safe.
Well, just like the debate over safe sex, there is a third approach if we want to recognise that gambling is a vice: Abstinence or, rather, no gambling.
To be fair, casinos do implement "abstinence" through exclusion orders of problem gamblers, initiated either by the gamblers or those close to them. However, we need more proactive persuasion of the "no gambling" message through campaigns.
But why would gambling operators, who make more money the more irresponsible gamblers are, want to support responsible gambling? Of course, their aim is also not to get problem gamblers to a stage when they are unable to pay off their losses.
Largely, responsible gaming is enlightened self-interest by the industry - and often imposed by regulators. The support of responsible gambling moderates an image of gambling operators as exploiters of human weaknesses to one that presents them as being caring of their clientele.
To some extent, responsible gambling provides a moral backstop to the moralistic arguments by those who are against institutionalised gambling. It cleverly shifts the problems of gambling from the operators to the players.
However, as argued above, if casinos and other gambling institutions are serious about being responsible on gambling, they should only promote "advantage play" or "no gambling."
Otherwise, we should recognise the term "responsible gambling" as not just an oxymoron, but also a dangerous ploy that leads a person down the slippery slope of recreational gambling to problem gambling.
Willie Cheng is active in the non-profit space and writes extensively on it. This is an edited extract of an article which first appeared in Salt Online at www.salt.org.sg
by Willie Cheng
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var fontIndex = 2; var fontSize = new Array('0.63em', '0.69em', '0.75em', '0.88em', '1em', '1.13em'); </SCRIPT>
Recently, I attended a forum on responsible gambling and gaming.
The term "responsible gambling" refers to judicious engagement in games of chance.
One forum speaker explained the concept well with a diagram of three boxes, from "no gambling" to "healthy gambling" to "problem gambling".
Responsible gambling is depicted as the middle stage, where one gambles moderately without adverse consequences from going overboard and becoming obsessed with gambling.
The forum discussed how the industry can promote responsible gambling. For gambling operators, this is known as "responsible gaming", which covers areas such as codes of conduct, programmes for vulnerable players, ethical marketing and fair gaming.
As I listened, I wondered if gambling can, indeed, be responsible. How can a person be responsible if he engages in an activity where the dice are loaded against him, knowing that he will lose more than he can win, on average and in the long run?
If the amount spent is small, it might well be affordable but still irresponsible, even if mildly so. After all, no one would invest, say, in a stock, if it was guaranteed he would lose money on it eventually.
However, there is one situation when casino gambling can be considered responsible: When the odds are clearly on the side of the gambler. In some games such as blackjack, the odds change as the cards are dealt even though, overall, the odds favour the house.
A very skilled player, especially one who "counts" the cards that have previously appeared, can make more winning decisions based on mental computations of the ongoing odds.
It is hard to imagine casinos welcoming such players who engage in what is more "advantage playing" than just gambling. Casino processes and staff training aim to identify and discourage, or ban, such players.
The philosophy of responsible gambling, as proposed by the industry, seems to be: Gamble responsibly, but do gamble. This sounds like the safe sex approach: If you cannot be good, be safe.
Well, just like the debate over safe sex, there is a third approach if we want to recognise that gambling is a vice: Abstinence or, rather, no gambling.
To be fair, casinos do implement "abstinence" through exclusion orders of problem gamblers, initiated either by the gamblers or those close to them. However, we need more proactive persuasion of the "no gambling" message through campaigns.
But why would gambling operators, who make more money the more irresponsible gamblers are, want to support responsible gambling? Of course, their aim is also not to get problem gamblers to a stage when they are unable to pay off their losses.
Largely, responsible gaming is enlightened self-interest by the industry - and often imposed by regulators. The support of responsible gambling moderates an image of gambling operators as exploiters of human weaknesses to one that presents them as being caring of their clientele.
To some extent, responsible gambling provides a moral backstop to the moralistic arguments by those who are against institutionalised gambling. It cleverly shifts the problems of gambling from the operators to the players.
However, as argued above, if casinos and other gambling institutions are serious about being responsible on gambling, they should only promote "advantage play" or "no gambling."
Otherwise, we should recognise the term "responsible gambling" as not just an oxymoron, but also a dangerous ploy that leads a person down the slippery slope of recreational gambling to problem gambling.
Willie Cheng is active in the non-profit space and writes extensively on it. This is an edited extract of an article which first appeared in Salt Online at www.salt.org.sg
Last edited:
