Hello and can you help a PhD student of Gambling?

[suzecat]

IMO if the loss of so much money was not a deterrent, then I would look to the licensing authorities to institute policy to protect: (1) problem gamblers who are unable to stop; and (2) casinos who are unable to identify problem gamblers. Once such a policy is instituted. the courts would have more teeth to rule on such issues.

[carjaw]

I find your comments really interesting - that in the case of Calvert who was just unable to stop that the regulators or licensing authorities should implement measures to 'help' him in overcoming his problem - and then with internet gambling because the issues of jurisdiction are so difficult without a licensing authority for cyberspace - I suppose these failings will continue with no end in sight unless the industry is willing to self-regulate itself.
Thank you again.

[DiamondGeezer]

The example reminds me of the case of Graham Calvert and his allegation that William Hill is responsible for his 2 million pounds gambling debt. A compulsive gambler who lost more than £2 million in a 5month betting spree lost again when the High Court threw out his claim for compensation and damages from the bookmaker William Hill. Graham Calvert, 28, a greyhound trainer, had argued that the company had failed in its "duty of care" towards him by allowing him to carry on betting and even to open a credit account after he had asked it to stop taking his money under its "self-exclusion" policy. It was a test case followed by bookies up and down the land who feared that a successful claim would open the floodgate to similar actions from out-of-pocket punters. However, the judge, Mr Justice Briggs ruled that the bookmaker owed Graham Calvert no duty of care despite the self-exclusion policy. The judge said that although William Hill did agree to exclude Mr Calvert from telephone gambling and failed to take reasonable steps to do so, pathological gambling would still probably have led to his financial ruin, but over a longer period of time. In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Briggs said: "William Hill’s failure to take reasonable care to exclude him from telephone gambling . . . did not therefore cause Mr Calvert any measurable financial or other loss."

Mr Calvert sued William Hill after he said that he had lost not only money but also his wife, health and livelihood. His lawyer, Anneliese Day, told the judge that William Hill should be held liable because it failed to operate its own policy. Calvert was hoping to establish in law for the first time that bookies do owe a duty of care in his circumstances. The scale of Calver's gambling was "staggering" — he had lost about £347,000 on one bet alone when he backed the US to win the 2006 Ryder Cup. Calvert ended up borrowing money to fund his habit, was an accomplished greyhound trainer who ran the family business from a farm in Co Durham. He was once "comfortably well off" and had been involved in gambling for most of his life.

Interestingly, between the years 2000 and 2005 he made £50,000 a year profit from gambling. William Hill described it as "a victory for common sense" and that there was no case to answer to Calvert and that no duty of care was owed to him in this instance.

For me - the PhD student - my point is - the Government or the Gambling Commission / the regulators should do more to protect problem gamblers; in particular, that the gambling industry should deal with problem gamblers in a unified manner. And of course, thisis the issue central to my study. Also, the current system, in which each operator has its own stand-alone social responsibility policy, may not go far enough to deal with problem gambling effectively. Should all operators agree that when there is a problem - they are going to act responsibly?

Oh dear - I am sure this post will rile somebody - but it is not meant to - I try to understand where you are coming from - can you agree to disagree with me and my dreadful survey but now see where my study is aiming to go?

Yes?

This case was always going to fail because he could have gone to another bookmaker. The fact he lost his money at William Hill made no matieral difference. Yes they should have excluded him and lost the business to another bookie but it would have not altered his position, only theirs.

The fundamental problem is how do you identify the problem gambler? Large losses at a bookie does not mean the gambler has a problem. They could infact be arbing the nuts off the bookie and making a large profit. This is why it is so difficult. You cant' just look at one bookie account as the person may have dozens.

There is a lot more to gambling than online gambling. In the UK for example the majority of problem gamblers are using Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in bookmakers. These machines have a huge advantage for the bookmaker and produce about 50% of shop profits. Then you also have shop and on course betting which is largely cash.

I think the gambling question is similar to the credit card question. With credit cards it is almost impossible to know if they are being used responsibily or not. One person can have seven cards but be using them intellignetly for a business while another may have two but be racking up large debts. If you simply look at the money patterns you would never be able to tell the good from the bad. And this is how it is with betting.

Contrary to popular belief big betting firms don't like problem gamblers as they give them a bad image. They don't make a lot of money from problem gambling. Bookmakers make money by having good trading rooms and making good pricing decisions.

There will always be gamblers. Infact risk taking is often good for society. I think that you can't stop it in an open society. The best way to prevent people from gambling too much is to educate them about house advantage and the overround. But there will always be victims jsut like alcohol and drugs. It's part of life. Just as printing warnings on a bottle of whiskey won't help a problem drinker, no amount of tinkering will affect gambling.

[Elizabeth]

This is so interesting. My belief is that so many factors have to come together to help a problem gambler. The most important is that the problem gambler has to admit they have a problem. This, of course, rarely happens until their life is so ou of control, they have no other option but to admit it. By then, what can online casinos do? If one contacts a reputable casino, stating they have a problem, most casinos will help them by closing and locking accounts, limiting deposits and so forth.ALL business owners should have take some responsibility for their consumers. I's hard to know where to draw the line, though. If a casino contacted me and said they thought I had a problem, hen in fact I did not, I would be offended and feel they were being too controlling. I, personally, do not think financial statements do any good to control ones spending. As to why online gambling can be a problem, 3Dice said it best...isolation and the high emotion that make it so appealing. As far as regulating online casinos, where would one begin? They are located in so many different jurisdictions, with different laws, so first you have to get past that. It would take years to sort out, I believe, because just as an individual would resent being regulated, so would businesses. The bottom line is as everyone here has said... the gambler must regulate him/herself

[kauphy]

i agree with all the people on here about it being up to the person to know when they have a promble and to seek help for it. no amount of safegarudes will stop someone when they want to play. if they can,t play on-line they will just go to a landbase casino and play and there r no safegrudes there to stop them from spending every last dime they have. and it is like having a drinking or drug promble. there is no diffdance so i see why everyone keeps bring that up. no bar will kick u out if you tell them you have a drinking promble and no drug dealer will not sell to you just caz they know you have a promble again it comes down to the person themselfs to seek help in stopping. i love reading what ya all write but boy u sure can be hard on people sometimes. but carjaw they r a good bunch of people and some have very good points to what they say.

[carjaw]

Once again thanks for all comments - and just to say - i really need more gamblers to take part in my survey - the more responses to the survey - the more powerful the results - many respondents to the survey do like the idea of some tools of control - but i believe if more and more forum members took part - the final results would be somewhat different - so please visit the survey if you can spare the time

[DiamondGeezer]

The problem is most gamblers are compulsive liars

[jas2587]

The problem is most gamblers are compulsive liars

I would use the words bluffers or bull-shiters

but hey the casino's tell fibs tooo sooo.....


Cindy

[jas2587]

Once again thanks for all comments - and just to say - i really need more gamblers to take part in my survey - the more responses to the survey - the more powerful the results - many respondents to the survey do like the idea of some tools of control - but i believe if more and more forum members took part - the final results would be somewhat different - so please visit the survey if you can spare the time

I might have missed it in this thread but where are you getting your PHD from?

Thanks
Cindy

[carjaw]

Just to let you know - if I am lucky !!! And work hard - my PhD will be from the University of Wales.

Along the lines of my PhD study - the number of users of gambling sites that have taken part in the survey is very low - much higher is the category of other and over 90% of this category identify themselves as self-identified problem gamblers.

Now - the parameters of my research - mean that it would be unethical to pay participants (and I couldnt afford it anywa) so - do any forum members have any ideas of getting users of gambling sites to take part in the survey?

Interestingly (well it is to me) when the survey was being designed and constructed I had the agreement of 3 large international operators to take part in my research - they approved the questions in the survey and agreed that when the survey was launched that each operator would send emails to its players with a link to my survey. and the interesting part is that of course - the operators have now refused to send out the link because of time and work commitments.

all i can hope is that my research can add to our limited understanding of responsible gambling features - hopefully the results of my survey will add to the knowledge of responsible gambling as a result i would really be most grateful if any members of the forum could complete a survey or else - share with me any good ideas on getting more users of gambling sites to get invlved.

thank you