We Americans spend more money on slots than on movies, baseball and theme parks combined.

But with the modern slot machines, there is a greater potential for a dangerous side effect: gambling addiction, as more people are addicted to slots than any other form of gambling.

via Slot Machines: The Big Gamble – 60 Minutes – CBS News.

The most disturbing thing about the piece, as journalism, is that it takes on faith the claim that “modern” slot machines are more addictive than older ones, but tries to run Dr. Shaffer through the wringer when he says that slot machines aren’t inherently addictive, and that its more a function of the personality than the machine.

And of course there’s the dig that “the gambling industry loves to quote” him, which might be because he’s a recognized expert on addictions. His is the Director of the Harvard Medical School’s Division on them, who I’m guessing has worked in greater breadth and depth with addictions and addicts than the anthropologist who seems to be the hero of the story.

Then you’ve got the selective use of statistics and cherry-picked personal stories that, while heart-breaking, don’t reflect the majority of slot players.

It’s just bad journalism.

As I’ve suggested before, the casino industry could be more proactive about getting better information into the public arena about slot machines. It has a goldmine of data about slot play: why not allow outside researchers to access a database that’s been stripped of all personally-identifying information? That would let them determine how long the average player plays for, and what the patterns of play over time are. The researchers could prove or disprove the hypothesis that “modern” machines cause more addictions quite easily.

There are some logistical challenges there, but it’s nothing that couldn’t be overcome. The more data that’s out in the public domain, the better idea everyone will have of the real nature and extent of problem gambling, and might lead to those who have problems getting diagnosed earlier.

I’d prepared some factoids about a previous high-profile attempt to use “the intoxication defense” to get out of paying a marker, the Leonard Tose case. You can follow the link to read his obituary which has what I think is the most germane element of the case to this discussion–he lost.

I also reviewed my research into the proportion of bad credit decisions that casinos make. I’ll excerpt the appropriate blog post here:

For fiscal year 2008, gamblers wagered about $232.4 billion dollars in Nevada casinos. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the correct credit number is ten percent of all money wagered in Nevada casinos. In that case, we can say that Nevada casinos extended about $23.2 billion in credit during fiscal year 2008.

According to the Nevada Gaming Abstract, in that year casinos statewide reported a total of $132.1 million as “bad debt expense,” i.e., uncollected markers. That seems like a lot of money, and it is. Compared to annual gaming revenues of about $12 billion for that period, though, it doesn’t look so big (”only” 1.1 percent). Next to the estimated total credit play, $23.2 billion, it’s tiny: 0.56 percent. Just over one-half of one percent of casino markers end up as bad debts…. Only a small percentage of markers end up unpaid, and it seems that casinos do a pretty good job of due diligence before letting players sign markers. Of course, a few high-profile cases gives a much different impression.

I thought I was prepared to offer an intelligent contribution to the discussion. As it turns out, the conversation was more about feelings that facts. I got the first word–Jane asked me what I thought of the case. After acknowledging that problem gambling was a serious issue for many people, I offered that in this case, because of the amount of money lost and the length of time over which it was squandered, there was an element of personal responsibility involved.

I’d barely gotten the words out of my mouth when one of the other guests interjected, “I don’t agree with that at all! The casinos were pouring him booze! He was an addict!” and continued an emotional tirade. Then someone interrupted him with a screed for personal responsibility, while Jane chimed in that we’re “a nation of addicts.” It was more about expressing our emotions and a priori assumptions than talking about the legal merit of the case or the bigger economic and social questions it raises. There were a few good callers, though, including one who asked a sensible question: if Watanabe had won, would he have given the money back since he wasn’t responsible for his actions?

Anyway, I’m glad that the Internet provides a forum where someone like me who doesn’t like to argue can just put some research out there and let people use it as they see fit. I’d really like to see that bad debt estimate become more widely known, because it puts the whole issue into perspective. Unfortunately, we only hear about the most sensational cases, and usually without any context.

High-rolling Nebraska philanthropist Terrance K. Watanabe is mounting an unusual defense to charges he failed to pay $14.7 million in Strip gambling debts.

He is accusing Caesars Palace and the Rio, both owned by Harrah’s Entertainment, of providing him with a steady flow of alcohol and — in the case of Caesars Palace — prescription painkillers as his losses increased.

His Las Vegas attorney, David Chesnoff, lays out the defense in a letter to prosecutors, claiming that casino employees will testify that the resorts kept the prolific gambler in a constant state of intoxication in the latter months of 2007 in violation of state gaming regulations.

Gambler who lost millions claims he was plied with alcohol, drugs – Las Vegas Sun.

Some interesting points: Watanabe reportedly lost $112 million at Harrah’s casinos in 2007. The $14.7 million in bad markers is about 13 percent of the total. Was it worth it to go after these markers? Some would say no, citing customer service, while others would say that if Watanabe had won, he’d have gotten paid, so it’s only fair that he pay every marker.

In 2009, $112 million is almost enough to buy a Las Vegas casino–at least a small one. According to David McKee, it would be enough to buy the Slots a Fun and have plenty left over for renovation and expansion–or pay for Criss Angel’s Believe.

Try to wrap your head around that: this guy could have starred in his own Cirque show, complete with a custom theater, with the money that he lost. It’s staggering.

While nothing is impossible, Watanabe probably is facing an uphill battle: the same argument didn’t work for Leonard Tose back in the early 1990s. This seems to be a similar case.

If Watanabe does win, we’d probably see a major re-evaluation of how casinos do business. Could blackjack tables be fitted with breathalyzers? Probably nothing that extreme, but you’d see a lot less complimentary alcohol.

This may be neither here nor there, but I know several people who come to Las Vegas who’d like nothing more than to be kept in a constant state of intoxication. Isn’t that one of the big sales points?

Gambling is an example of variable or intermittent reinforcement. A gambler learns that an action, making a bet, can result in a desired outcome, winning. The variable aspect of winning — a gambler might win three bets in a row before losing the next 10 — makes it all the more difficult to get up and walk away.

But David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, isn’t ready to apply scientific research done by Skinner and others to all aspects of gambling.

“I’ve got some problems with that,” he said. “Because people really aren’t rats.”

The allure of gambling – Columbian.com.

I stand by that observation–if you’re going to try to construct a theory of why people gamble, it needs to be much more sophisticated than “variable reinforcement.” I’m sure the casino marketing people wish it were that easy, but it’s not.

In any event, my reinforcement schedule was way out of whack yesterday, since I finished 13th out of 14th in the Run-Good Challenge II. After a promising start (i.e., not going out first overall), I made a spectacular exit. By spectacular I mean “making decisions that are more about hunches than pot odds.”

A Chinese man faked his own kidnapping as well as that of his 14-month-old grandson, before demanding a ransom from the toddler's parents to fund his gambling addiction, Spanish police said Thursday.

The toddler's father, who runs a food shop in Madrid, went to a police station in the early hours of Oct 28 to report that his son and the child's 53-year-old grandfather had been kidnapped, police said in a statement.

The man said a woman had called another family member to demand 50,000 euros (65,000 dollars) for their safe return.

In a second call made several hours later, the supposed kidnapper put the toddler's grandfather, identified only as Yimei L, on the line.

"He said he was being coerced by the kidnappers, who demanded the money," the police statement said.

Yimei then made a third call to his family where he said he had escaped but urgently needed money to secure the release of his grandson who was threatened with death.

Police located him shortly afterwards and took him in for questioning. Yimei soon admitted the story was not true. His 48-year-old accomplice, Jiantuan Y was also detained after she abandoned the baby inside a supermarket trolley.

"The woman said that her companion was the brains behind the operation and the motive was to frighten the family and get money for playing slot machines," the police statement said.

The pair will now face charges over the incident

Chinese man fakes kidnapping to fund gambling addiction.

Do you think that guy has a gambling problem? And what does it say when the “brains” of your operation is just looking for more cash for the slots?

A panel discussion on the ins and outs of the gambling industry will be held October 14, from 10 a.m. to noon, at UNLVs Paradise Campus. Admission is free.

Mark Clayton of the Nevada State Gaming Control Board, Carol OHare of the Nevada Council on Gaming Addiction, and Alan Feldman from MGM-MIRAGE will discuss the states economic reliance on gaming, how the state controls the gaming industry, and the impact of gambling addiction. Jon Ralston will be the moderator.

At 851 East Tropicana Avenue, room 133. Hosted by the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute in the Division of Educational Outreach at UNLV. For more information call 895-3394.

News 88.9 KNPR – Nevada Public Radio – Public Service Announcements.

I did a talk for OLLI today about gambling history and casino security (sort of a blend of my interests) and judging from the questions it should be a lively panel.

In another study, psychologist Arch G. Woodside, PhD, of Boston College, and Ralph Perfetto, PhD, of the University of Rhode Island, found that while most people do not gamble, the majority who do gamble, do so most weeks of the year. They have moderate incomes and are at the highest risk for financial and psychological trouble.

Using data from the annual DDB Needham Life Style Survey, Woodside and Perfetto looked at casino gambling patterns among 20,568 adults from 1993 to 1998. They found that less than 2 percent of all casino gamblers are responsible for nearly 25 percent of all casino gambling wins and losses – referred to as the extreme or X-gamblers. The authors identified three sub-types of X-gamblers. "Whales," are mostly white, middle-aged men with high incomes who go to casinos most weeks of the year. They spend the most money. "Jumbo shrimp" are mostly older white females with very low incomes and visit casinos most weeks of the year. Finally, "big fish" are very frequent gamblers with moderate incomes and make up more than half the X-gamblers. Most middle-income X-gamblers come from mixed demographic backgrounds. X-gamblers visited casinos 25 times or more a year.

"Understanding the demographics and the different influences that play into gambling can help psychologists tailor their interventions for people who get into trouble," said Woodside. "Moderate-income X-gamblers – big fish – are at the most risk for losing the most money and suffering the most overwhelming financial and psychological consequences. The whales can afford to lose money and the jumbo shrimps don’t have much money to lose."

Americans Spending, Gambling, Saving: Who’s Happiest, Who’s Most At Risk?.

I’m going to try to get a copy of this study to examine the methodology. I’d like to see how they calculated what percentage of customers are responsible for what percentage of casino revenue. I always thought that you couldn’t do that with any certainty unless you had 100% of all players using player-tracking cards and, of course, access to the data.

I also threw up a little when I read the phrase “extreme or X-gamblers.” Well, not literally, but I did in my mind. It just sounds like radical dudes slamming Mountain Dew, skating down to their local casino, doing a wicked railslide down the handicapped entrance, and taking keno to the Xtreme. And the whole gambler food chain–whales, big fish, jumbo shrimp–seems a bit simplistic as well. I’m all for presenting your material so that it’s accessible to the masses, but come on.

I’ve emailed one of the authors to get a copy. If I do, I’ll follow up with a more comprehensive critique.

Seriously–I know people who think that “disordered gaming” is a euphemism. I think that “pathological gambling” sounds too pop psychology-ish (like “pathological liar’), so I’ve always preferred “problem gambling.” But “extreme gambling” just sounds like people with bad tattoos and ill-advised piercings hitting “max bet.”

A $3.5-billion proposed class-action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of thousands of addicted gamblers who allege they asked to be barred from Ontario’s casinos, but were still allowed in.

The suit was filed against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation on Tuesday in Toronto, claiming that the corporation did not do enough for those who signed up for “self-exclusion,” a program that allows people to have themselves banned from casinos so that they can curb their ruinous gambling habits.

None of the allegations has been proven in court and a statement of defence has not yet been filed.

Those who sign up for the program are photographed and registered, and their information is stored in binders at every provincial casino. If they are caught trying to enter a casino, they can be arrested for trespassing.

But gamblers who spoke with CBC News on condition of anonymity said the program doesn’t work. One woman said she registered for the program, but her gambling addiction led her back to a casino soon after.

“I walked through, no one looked at me,” she said. “I kept gambling for the next couple of years.”

Lawyers say the OLG should be using high-tech systems to catch self-banned gamblers. In the Netherlands, gamblers present photo identification at casinos, and their identification is checked against a computer database, lawyers say.

Problem gamblers hit Ontario casinos with $3.5B lawsuit

There seems to be some precedent here, since the OLGC has settled 9 individual suits pertaining to self-exclusion out of court. But this might be going too far.

From the casino’s perspective, self-exclusion has some problems (pardon the pun). As card-counters wearing disguises, etc, prove, if someone is dead set on gambling in a casino, even if they are on a watch list, it’s very hard to exclude them. Of course, if they do something that raises their profile, like win a jackpot over the tax threshold, they’ll be discovered when they have to show ID.

One way to make sure that no one who’s gambling has excluded themselves is to make sure everyone who enters a casino has a player’s card, as is done in Missouri. But these are gambling barges with relatively low capacities and, by their nature, one or two entrances.

This system couldn’t work in Nevada casinos without extensive retrofits, since thousands of people who don’t gamble pass through the casino en route to restaurants, shows, convention space, or their rooms. The millions of gamblers who don’t have a problem would also view it as excessively intrusive. Getting carded every time you walk through a casino stops being fun a few months after you turn 21 and can legally enter.

If there are thousands of people on self-exclusion lists, it ludicrous to ask casino employees to bear the responsibility of actively seeking them out and barring them. Until we invent the Matrix-type system where you can download knowledge without all that tedious studying, I don’t think you could find a way to have employees do this.

Recently, the British Columbia government announced plans to hire nine “responsible gambling information officers.” These new deputies of safe gaming will spend their working hours hanging out in casinos throughout the Canadian province, looking for “distressed gamblers” with whom they will discuss gambling.

Like many Las Vegans, you may not be quite sure what to make of this news. Is this a case of our Canadian brethren (or at least their elected officials) having a more finely developed social conscience than us hardscrabble, self-reliant Nevadans, or just the nanny state run amok?

Canada sends problem-gambling monitors to casinos

Strangely, what I thought was the most uncontroversial part of the piece: that “The industry has an obligation to ensure that all of the games are actually as they are advertised,” and that players have the right to learn about game odds, was reprinted below the column under the header “Sounding Off.” I don’t know if this means that I was sounding off when I said this, or that readers are welcome to write in defending the right of Nevada casinos to surreptitiously alter the odds of the game. I’d like to see someone write in to say that if a casino wants to take all of the tens out of their blackjack shoes without saying so, it’s totally cool with them as a player. It might be fun, just to see someone’s head explode with fury over at the Las Vegas Advisor.

Well, there’s a solution to every problem, and a way to squeeze every human behavior into a box. An Australian academic consortium has developed a checklist of 50 behaviors that will tip employees off to problem gamblers in their midst. From Adelaide Now:

A CHECK list of indicators to alert hospitality staff to problem gamblers has been developed in a new study.

The list that includes a check list of 50-points, would be installed in every gaming machine venue, under recommendations presented in the study by Adelaide University in conjunction with the University of Canberra and the Australian National University.

The list asks staff to indicate how often a gambler displays a behaviour in order to establish how serious their habit is.

The checklist includes actions such as displaying violence towards the machine, gambling every day, trying obsessively to win, rushing from one machine to another and playing mainly high denomination machines.

The report also found that problem gamblers were more likely to show visible indicators such as anger, depression and violence towards the machines as well as sweating, complaining to staff and disguising ones presence at the venue.

AdelaideNow… Gambling checklist developed

I think that if you 86ed people for doing all those things, the casinos would be emptied within a matter of minutes. I’m talking tumbleweeds blowing through the craps pit. I want to know how you can quantify “trying obsessively to win,” as opposed to just playing slots for a long stretch. Is the correct behavior supposed to be trying obsessively to lose? And playing high denoms might just mean that someone has the money to spare and wants to take advantage of the better hold percentage; playing high denoms is actually rational behavior if you see gambling as an entertainment and want to minimize its proportional cost.

Violence towards the machine was so important that it gets two mentions. How about violence towards the staff?

Finally, it’s always great that “researchers” take something as complex as human cognition and behavior and try to reduce it to a bunch of boxes to be checked. Good luck with that.

The Boston Celtics, favored by four points, faced the 76ers in Philadelphia on Dec. 13 and won 101-81 in what seemed to be just another NBA blowout featuring bad Atlantic Division teams.

On or about the same date in Pennsylvania, an NBA referee assigned to that game had spoken in code with someone by phone to give him his pick for what NBA team to bet on. The next day, that “top-tier” referee, Tim Donaghy, met with gambling associates in Pennsylvania to pick up his cash payment for the pick.

On or about Dec. 26, Donaghy made a similar call to give another pick. That night he worked the Memphis Grizzlies-Wizards game in Washington, won 116-101 by the 7½-point favorite home team.

And on or about March 11 of this year, Donaghy met with a man in Toronto and got a cash payment. That night he worked the game won by the 6½-point favorite Raptors 120-119 vs. the Seattle SuperSonics.

In a court very different from where he once worked, Donaghy, 40, pleaded guilty Wednesday to two felony charges in the gambling scandal that has stunned the sports world. Released on $250,000 bond from federal court in Brooklyn, he faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced Nov. 9 for conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce.

“Some of my picks included games I had been assigned to referee,” Donaghy said. It is not known if he made officiating calls during the game to help the team he predicted would win.

The “rogue” referee, as NBA Commissioner David Stern described Donaghy, must pay a $500,000 fine and at least $30,000 in restitution.

Former ref Donaghy details his gambling deception – USATODAY.com

As with the Tocchet case, I would hope that some good can come out of what is an awful situation for everyone involved–namely, a serious discussion of the relationship between gambling and sports. But, since this is just a “rogue” referee, I guess we won’t be hearing too much more about gambling and sports—until the next “isolated incident” erupts into scandal.

Burt Dragin spent considerable time in Las Vegas during the 1950s but never lived in the gambling resort town.

An 8-year-old Dragin started taking frequent “family vacations” from California so his father could indulge in legally what he was having little trouble engaging in illegally around Beverly Hills — gambling.

“My father … always gambled beyond his means,” Dragin said. “Las Vegas was built, initially, on people like my father.”

A journalism professor at Laney College in Oakland, Calif., Dragin discussed his family and the problem of compulsive gambling Friday at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“There is no mystery about those who, like Steve Wynn, are inclined toward owning the house,” Dragin read from his autobiography, “Six to Five Against: A Gambler’s Odyssey.”

“It’s guaranteed gravy. You walk around with a frozen smile and watch the suckers crushed by the immutable odds.”

How widespread compulsive gambling is in the country depends on who you ask, according to Dragin.

He said that most neutral studies say approximately 5 percent of the population, or 11 million, suffer from compulsive gambling. However, Dragin added that the American Gaming Association puts the number at less than 1 percent.

Emphasizing that he is not a moralist, he said the gaming industry is not contributing enough money toward research and treatment programs to address issues that helped build lavish Strip resorts.

ReviewJournal.com – Business – Author says he escaped family demon: gambling

The event was a great success. I want to run another one in October. If you know of an author on a book relating to gambling–be it an academic monograph or a novel–get in touch with me. That being said, if it’s a systems book I probably won’t be able to get the administration behind it: they’re all for fostering discussion about gambling, but I think they draw the line at flat-out teaching people how to play blackjack. Of course, that won’t stop me from teaching my students how to count cards when I teach Econ 404 next semester up in Reno.

If you attended, thank you for coming, and if you’ve got any suggestions for future authors to feature, please let me know.

Burt Dragin. Six to Five Against: A Gambler’s Odyssey. Berkeley: RDR Books, 2005.

Six to Five Against is a refreshing, sometimes wincingly honest look at one man’s gambling. Drawing chiefly on his own experiences but supported by Dragin’s investigations into the thrall that gambling holds for many, this is an open, honest, and readable story that will appeal to anyone who gambles or wants to better understand gamblers.

Dragin opens the book with an interesting thought: he’s got a lot in common with Steve Wynn. They were both born in the same year to gambling fathers, and both have had lifelong relationships with gambling, though Dragin admits that the billionaire casino owner has gotten rich from gambling, while he hasn’t. Along the way, Dragin luckily transformed his obsession with gambling into an obsession with gamblers and research into gambling, and the result is this memoir/problem gambling overview.

The short book is divided into four parts. The First, My Role Model, hinges on Dragin’s father Phil, a lifelong gambler. In the second part, Gambling Demons, the focus shifts to the author’s gambling travails. The third part, Profiles, is a series of quick (6 pages or so) sketches of several problem gamblers Dragin interviewed. Part four, The Last Act, is a coda of sorts, describing Phil Dragin’s last years and the author’s final acceptance of his problem gambling.

Six to Five Against works because Dragin is able to coolly, almost dispassionately analyze himself as well as his subjects. His honesty about his gambling is refreshing, and it puts him in a league with Dostoyevsky as a writer who can bring his own gambling to bear on his writing–in Dostoyevsky’s case fiction, in Dragin’s memoir/creative non-fiction–and produce something both eye-opening and thought-provoking.

Dragin’s father’s life parallels that of many men who ended up in Las Vegas one both sides of the table. Growing up in an immigrant, Yiddish and Russian-speaking household in Cleveland, he spurned hard work and sober devotion for the gambling underworld, which included Moe Dalitz’s Harvard Club and an entire stratum of pool rooms, racetracks, touts, and bustouts. Calling it Runyonesque is almost an understatement. Indeed, Dragin pays homage to Damon Runyon in the book’s opening pages, embracing him as a kindred spirit (his title is taken from a particularly pithy gem from Runyon’s “A Nice Price”), and its easy to see how he made a strong emotional connection between his father’s war stories of Cleveland’s gambling scene and Runyon’s memorable characters.

Moving to Los Angeles, Dragin’s father enjoys a bit of good luck, followed by years of hard work, frustration, and disappointment, including more than one arrest for gambling. Dragin follows in his father’s footsteps, trying to balance the demands of adulthood with an unstoppable need to gamble. In the end, father and son seem to reach a rapprochement with their “gambling demon” that contains, but doesn’t entirely banish, it. As a simple family story, Six to Five Against is not only touching, but transforming–the reader is challenged to consider how gambling both tied together and tore apart the Dragins.

As remarkable a document the Dragin story would be as a simple memoir, it’s much more. Throughout, Dragin interweaves personal experience, interviews, and historical research quite effectively. As a historian, I’ve got to concede that the historical background isn’t as well-plumbed as it might have been, which in a few cases hinders Dragin. For example, Dragin just repeats the description of the Flamingo as “the first ornate palace” in the Nevada desert, completely ignoring the earlier El Rancho Vegas and Last Frontier. Worse yet, he doesn’t even mention Billy Wilkerson, whose story would have lent considerable weight to the narrative. Wilkerson, after all, was the brilliant promoter and compulsive gambler who first conceived of the Flamingo, and whose inabilities to control his gambling (combined with Siegel’s predatory avarice) forced him to lose the casino shortly before it opened. There’s also a bit of editorial sloppiness as Giralomo Cardano’s name changes to “Cordano” and back a few times on the same page. But these miscues don’t mar what is a powerful and convincing book.

Dragin is unflinchingly honest, talking candidly of his own struggles with gambling while admitting that no one held a gun to his head and forced him to gamble. Not willing to call himself a victim, he still grapples with an obsession so powerful that it must be biological. He includes many details that a less honest and courageous writer might not have–particularly a heart-breaking exchange between him and his father towards the end of the book–and our understanding of gambling is richer for his risk-taking.

I strongly recommend Six to Five Against for those who want to learn more about the gambler’s psyche, particularly because Dragin is adept at blending the psychological literature with interviews and biographical sketches. Necessarily anecdotal, the book provides rare insights and a highly personal account of one gambler’s journey. It’s a must for any gambling researcher’s bookshelf.

If you question the propriety of holding a problem gambling conference in a casino, I’m guessing you’ve never been to Nevada. In this state, that seems like the obvious locale.

You can read a little more about it from Ascend Media:

The conference will focus on recent trends and issues in prevention and treatment, and will showcase the new and expanded programs and services that have been supported by the state funding that was approved by the Nevada legislature in 2005. The conference itself is one component of the Council’s ongoing workforce development program that is supported in part by a grant from the Nevada Fund for the Prevention and Treatment of Problem Gambling. Professionals will be able to earn 10 hours of continuing education credit for their participation in the two day event.

The conference will include a community forum on the first evening, titled “Help for Today, Hope for Tomorrow” that will be open to public, free of charge. Members of the State Advisory Committee on Problem Gambling will be participating in this discussion of the ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of problem gambling in Nevada.

Individuals interested in registering to attend the conference should contact the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling at 702-369-9740 or visit the Council website at www.nevadacouncil.org.

It should be a good conference–I unfortunately won’t be in town, but if I was, I’d be there. While my academic work isn’t centered on problem gambling, it’s where 90% of the research is, so I like to stay on top of it.

Russian actors are being paid to pretend to be destitute beggars in a government scheme to discourage people from gambling.

They will tell passers-by how they were once rich executives who lost everything after becoming addicted to gambling.

Vladimir Platonov from Moscow city council said the plan would see the actors sent to stand outside casinos dressed as beggars.

The move comes as fears grow that the city could be overrun with gambling addicts after a recent ruling by the Moscow Supreme court overturned a law that casinos could only be built outside the city.

Under the scheme, which Moscow city officials claim is a world-first, actors will be selected at a special casting in front of a city council committee.

It is unclear how much the actors will be paid but it is thought they will be given at least the average monthly wage in Russia of £200 to work five evenings a week.

Some will even be given an instrument, such as an accordion, to turn the story into a sorrowful lament.

Ananova – Actors dress as tramps to fight gambling

There’s a range of things governments can do about problem gambling. They can ignore the problem. They can require casinos to post problem gambling helplines in their ads. They can mandate that casinos fund problem gambling programs. They can force casinos to institute “cooling off” periods by setting limits on playing time. Or they can just not legalize and regulate gaming industries.

Some of these things are of dubious constitutionality, and many would intrude on what most Americans would regard as their right to privacy. But they are far more sensible than the Moscow Plan, if it is more than the Russian equivalent of a bogus April Fool’s story (the one official quoted, Vladimir Platonov, apparently really is on the Moscow duma, but I have no other verification).

I just can’t imagine how someone could propose this with a straight face. I’m no problem gambling expert, but I’m reasonably confident that if we held a symposium of experts, public officials, and the general public and kept them pent up for 40 days and 40 nights, they’d never come up with anything this whacked out.

Hiring actors to protray gambling addicts? Lamenting the scourge of gambling while playing the accordian? If this happens, someone’s got to upload video.

Of course, you could just conduct a study of problem gambling prevalence, do outreach with at-risk groups, and attempt to raise awareness of available resources. But that isn’t nearly as effective as having extras play singing hobos, I’m sure.