Propose new Standards for Accredited Casinos

[spearmaster]

It's fundamentally wrong for someone to ask a casino for their money withdrawn, and for the casino response to this simple and straightforward request to be "how about we keep it, and here's an incentive to make you say yes?"

The way you put it is, shall we say, overkill?

The way it is usually presented is a lot more straightforward than that - something like "if you reverse your withdrawal, we'll credit your account with an additional 50% bonus".

How on earth are the casino to know they will be saving 'processing' fees? The player in question might want to withdraw their cash - then never play there ever again; which of course they are quite entitled to do.

And they have the choice to refuse the offer and be paid - what is it that you are not understanding?

They are not coerced into taking the offer, nor are they likely to take the offer if they have no plans to return.

In order to avoid that scenario, as we spoke about earlier, the casino should then concentrate on its loyalty and customer incentives to ensure they keep the customer coming back for more.

This isn't going to avoid the scenario, and besides, isn't a bonus a customer incentive?

I know what you're getting at though, so I agree.

Whilst the financials from the casino perspective make perfect sense with a regularly depositing player - they've got no right to attempt to 'force' this scenario and savings on someone simply asking for their money back.

They are NOT forcing a scenario. The player is NOT forced to accept the offer. As long as they don't sit there and play the bargaining game, there should be no issue with this at all.

If, however, they try to sweeten the original offer, or they introduce any other condition (such as additional delays) because the offer was not accepted, I would consider that unethical. But a one-time offer of a bonus to reverse the withdrawal is NOT a problem - is it that hard for you to say "no" if you don't want something?

[Slotster!]

- is it that hard for you to say "no" if you don't want something?

Well, for me, no.

The issue here is the ethical treatment of players in relation to a the casino's obligation towards problem gambling.

I absolutely understand where you are coming from, and for me I'd hopefully just laugh and say no thanks (or more likely accept the offer and blow the lot - but I never learn)

For a problem gambler though, I just don't think it's right that there should be this 'step' and opportunity for potential downfall in the middle of what should be a simple procedure.

I know you have excellent 'insider' knowledge of the industy Spearmaster. In your honest opinion, do you agree with the casino rep I spoke to when he maintained that without problem gamblers, they'd be finished as a business?

[Slotster!]

I just remembered something as well... I made a £3000 withdrawal from Belle Rock once and, whilst not refusing the withdrawal or 'holding on' to it - they did call me immediately and offer me a 200% deposit bonus - only applicable if taken in the next three days. With Belle Rock's mandatory 24hour reversal period, of course it made perfect sense for me to reverse some of the amount that was sat there and take advantage of the offer.

I didn't as it goes - but I guess that's a slightly more reasonable way of going about things.

I still prefer the free cash in your account route though

[spearmaster]

The issue here is the ethical treatment of players in relation to a the casino's obligation towards problem gambling.

.snip.

For a problem gambler though, I just don't think it's right that there should be this 'step' and opportunity for potential downfall in the middle of what should be a simple procedure.

You have to understand - a problem gambler should not be in the casino in the first place - and certainly not every player offered a reverse withdrawal bonus is a problem gambler - I'd say this would be a very minor percentage. You would probably not be correct in assuming that every player offered this bonus does not want it either.

Taking it from your point of view - one could say that a casino should not be open because they have an obligation towards problem gambling.

Or else - there is no issue.

I've spoken at conferences on problem gambling - and in fact my recommendations are the basis for many of the regulations being implemented in Singapore for their upcoming land-based casinos.

I know you have excellent 'insider' knowledge of the industy Spearmaster. In your honest opinion, do you agree with the casino rep I spoke to when he maintained that without problem gamblers, they'd be finished as a business?

I do not agree. I think you should treat that as a light-hearted comment. No gambling jurisdiction, land-based or online, would ever tolerate anything near a majority of players being "problem" gamblers.

Unless, of course, the particular casino you were referring to was a rogue casino... in which case I could possibly believe it because no player who wants to be treated properly would likely play there.

I just remembered something as well... I made a £3000 withdrawal from Belle Rock once and, whilst not refusing the withdrawal or 'holding on' to it - they did call me immediately and offer me a 200% deposit bonus - only applicable if taken in the next three days. With Belle Rock's mandatory 24hour reversal period, of course it made perfect sense for me to reverse some of the amount that was sat there and take advantage of the offer.

I didn't as it goes - but I guess that's a slightly more reasonable way of going about things.

What makes this any different from what we've been discussing? You prefer a phone call instead of an email? Some gamblers do not tolerate phone calls under any circumstances...

... and at 200%, I bet the playthrough would've been enormous...

[spiderlegz]

You have to understand - a problem gambler should not be in the casino in the first place - and certainly not every player offered a reverse withdrawal bonus is a problem gambler - I'd say this would be a very minor percentage. You would probably not be correct in assuming that every player offered this bonus does not want it either.

Taking it from your point of view - one could say that a casino should not be open because they have an obligation towards problem gambling.

Or else - there is no issue.

I've spoken at conferences on problem gambling - and in fact my recommendations are the basis for many of the regulations being implemented in Singapore for their upcoming land-based casinos.



I do not agree. I think you should treat that as a light-hearted comment. No gambling jurisdiction, land-based or online, would ever tolerate anything near a majority of players being "problem" gamblers.

Unless, of course, the particular casino you were referring to was a rogue casino... in which case I could possibly believe it because no player who wants to be treated properly would likely play there.



What makes this any different from what we've been discussing? You prefer a phone call instead of an email? Some gamblers do not tolerate phone calls under any circumstances...

... and at 200%, I bet the playthrough would've been enormous...

Actually 90% of the casinos revenue (B&M in USA) comes from 10% of the players of which the majority are problem gamblers. I dont know what the figures are online but its safe to assume that they also make most of their profit from problem gamblers.

So they dont need the majority of the players to be problem gamblers when 10% is enough.

[liquuid_fusion]

It depends how you define "problem gambler".

There was a documentary made by Louis Theroux shown in the UK a couple of years ago where he travelling to Las Vegas to see how casinos encourage gamblers etc. There was one old woman who was a multi-millionaire who just sat there at a slot machine all day every day, slowly burning her money. She had dropped several million dollars in the last few years. The casino looked after her well and encouraged her.

There were other similar examples.

It was all B&M stuff but i'm sure the online casino world has equivalents.

It must be hard for a casino to draw the line at what exactly a problem gambler is, given that the main aim of a casino is to encourage people to gamble.

[spearmaster]

Actually 90% of the casinos revenue (B&M in USA) comes from 10% of the players of which the majority are problem gamblers. I dont know what the figures are online but its safe to assume that they also make most of their profit from problem gamblers.

So they dont need the majority of the players to be problem gamblers when 10% is enough.

Your source please?

It depends how you define "problem gambler".

There was a documentary made by Louis Theroux shown in the UK a couple of years ago where he travelling to Las Vegas to see how casinos encourage gamblers etc. There was one old woman who was a multi-millionaire who just sat there at a slot machine all day every day, slowly burning her money. She had dropped several million dollars in the last few years. The casino looked after her well and encouraged her.

There were other similar examples.

It was all B&M stuff but i'm sure the online casino world has equivalents.

It must be hard for a casino to draw the line at what exactly a problem gambler is, given that the main aim of a casino is to encourage people to gamble.

I suppose that's a good point - but if an old lady who is a multi-millionaire can afford to do that, and she is not in any financial difficulty, I can't quite see where the casino can tell her what not to do with her money!

Obviously we would need to know exactly what "encouragement" means in this case - free room/board (normal), free drinks (normal to an extent), cheering her on (strange)... certainly there should be some limit as to what kind of encouragement a casino can provide to a patron.

... ok, I just read a few summaries online - her husband's memorial service was held at the casino, FOC (weird - but I guess she asked for it, I can't see the casino offering it)... and she's an 80-year-old doctor (clearly not uneducated).

Most important to note - when Theroux went back to harangue her son about his mother's gambling, he said "She wants to gamble, it makes her happy so that's all right with me."

xxhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2007/feb/05/louisdoeslasvegas

[spiderlegz]

Your source please?

Had that report on my old computer, will see if I find it later. Heres just one I found. The figures arent quite that extreme as the ones I quoted earlier.
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2005-...mary-11-04.pdf

Overall for those interested worth to google "gambling cost benefit" without the quotation marks. Barney Frank could read some of those too.

[spearmaster]

Had that report on my old computer, will see if I find it later. Heres just one I found. The figures arent quite that extreme as the ones I quoted earlier.
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2005-...mary-11-04.pdf

Overall for those interested worth to google "gambling cost benefit" without the quotation marks. Barney Frank could read some of those too.

Just read it - thanks.

I'm not quite sure what kind of conclusion can be drawn from this summary of Professor Grinol's study on Gambling Economics, though.

In this summary, he uses data extracted from different parts of the world (ie. Australia and Canada), as well as a few states like Montana, South Carolina and Florida - and notably misses out Vegas and Atlantic City.

Needless to say, the culture, traditions and especially economics of these varied areas differ significantly and I do not see a good reason for them to be linked together by the tenous similarity of "gambling".

Each area needs to be studied in respect of its own situation. Certainly one would find it hard to believe that Montana and Vegas can be compared to each other...

That being said, there are some useful numbers in there - like 48.2% of machine revenues being derived from pathological and problem gamblers in Australia, 58% in Ontario, 37% in Montana.

I already know about the problem in Australia, but there it is mainly a social problem which the government doesn't seem to be too interested in, and it relates primarily to pokie parlours - guess the equivalent would be a slots club or perhaps the local convenience store in various states, or in the UK these are actually considered arcades or casinos. And needless to say, the most affected are the lower-income groups, many of them Aboriginal.

Online, however, there is no real way to make similar observations - casinos don't ask for your ethnic origin, or income level, etc., nor are they able to physically observe this. The best that can be done is gender, nationality, age, preferred game, size and frequency of deposits.

The only way I can think of which may provide some hint into problem gambling is if a player makes many small deposits (similar to sticking in many $1 bills into a slot machine, rather than $100), or uses many different payment methods (like trying all your credit cards for cash advances). Game selection might provide additional insight, since most problem gamblers are likely to be chasing big wins for small bets.

But other than that - it's certainly not clear-cut, and definitely much more difficult online.

If you do find other research, I would be most interested in reading it