Posted on 02/29/2012 12:56:45 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Thanks for the ping!
>Unless you can cite supporting statistical data, I’ll contend that you are woefully misguided on the matter.
>I’d wager (i.e., gamble) that the casinos in Vegas (or Atlantic City) make 98% of their profits off of people who are not habitual gamblers. Just like brewers and distillers make 98% of their profits off of people who are not alcoholics.
Looks like you lost the bet.
The first study I found said this:
The proportion of gambling revenue derived from problem gamblers is an important issue when considering the appropriateness of government-sponsored gambling. Figures obtained from prior research are tentative due to methodological problems and the mismatch between reported expenditures and actual gambling revenue. Using improved methods for assessing the prevalence of problem gambling and the accuracy of self-reported gambling expenditures, the present study estimates that the 4.8 percent of problem gamblers in Ontario in 2003 accounted for approximately 36 percent of Ontario gambling revenue. This proportion varied as a function of game type, with a lower proportion for lotteries, instant win tickets, bingo, and raffles, and a higher proportion for horse racing and slot machines.
(You guessed 2% of revenue from problem gamblers, this study estimates 36% )
>Purveyors of legal products should not be held responsible for the small fraction of people who misuse and abuse the product. Would you hold automobile companies responsible for reckless drivers?
I don’t know how I could have been more clear that I wasn’t advocating government involvement.
There is something about the cited report which makes me highly skeptical. Could it be that "4.8% of problem gamblers accounted for 36% of gambling revenue". What percentage of revenue did all "problem gamblers" account for? What about "non-problem gamblers"? Do they even exist.
Did this report classify all gamblers as "problem gamblers"? Was it a self-serving study conducted by an anti-gambling organization?
Sounds like it to me.
There is something about the cited report which makes me highly skeptical. Could it be that "4.8% of problem gamblers accounted for 36% of gambling revenue". What percentage of revenue did all "problem gamblers" account for? What about "non-problem gamblers"? Do they even exist.
Did this report classify all gamblers as "problem gamblers"? Was it a self-serving study conducted by an anti-gambling organization?
Sounds like it to me.
There is something about the cited report which makes me highly skeptical. Could it be that "4.8% of problem gamblers accounted for 36% of gambling revenue". What percentage of revenue did all "problem gamblers" account for? What about "non-problem gamblers"? Do they even exist?
Did this report classify all gamblers as "problem gamblers"? Was it a self-serving study conducted by an anti-gambling organization?
Sounds like it to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.