赌博中的可卡因?英国的赌博机

C. Snowdon
{"title":"赌博中的可卡因?英国的赌博机","authors":"C. Snowdon","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2267410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper assesses the claims made about gambling machines in British betting shops, in particular ‘fixed-odds betting terminals’. These machines are routinely dubbed ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’ and it is said that players can lose £18,000 in an hour. They are blamed for a rise in problem gambling and it is alleged that Britons lose £42 billion on the machines every year. It is also claimed that betting shops have proliferated as bookmakers scramble to cash in on the popularity of the machines.The ‘crack cocaine of gambling’ label has been attached to virtually every new gambling product since the late-1980s. It is never attributed to any named individual and is akin to anti-gambling folklore. Such rhetoric is used by campaigners to attract media attention.The number of betting shops in Britain began to decline in the late 1960s and reached an all-time low at the turn of the century. Since then, there has been a slight resurgence, with numbers rising by 4.5 per cent between 2000 and 2012. These figures are not consistent with the claim that there has been a ‘dramatic proliferation’ of betting shops. Contrary to popular belief, the bookmaking industry’s gross gambling yield has fallen slightly in recent years.There is some anecdotal evidence that there is ‘clustering’ of betting shops in areas where the four machine limit is insufficient to meet demand. Insofar as this oversupply of betting shops is an issue, it can best be addressed by raising the limit. Existing evidence does not support the claim that fixed-odds betting terminals have led to a nationwide rise in problem gambling, nor do the data suggest that these machines are uniquely ‘addictive’ or seductive.The campaign against virtual gaming machines in betting shops closely resembles previous moral panics about new gambling products. The reliance on anecdotal evidence, well-worn rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims about ‘addiction’ is characteristic of similar panics which were subsequently abandoned when it became clear that the new activity was neither especially pernicious nor particularly contagious.Like other parts of the gambling sector, the bookmaking industry has responded to the market shifting towards virtual gaming. Opponents of fixed-odds betting terminals are aware than a severe reduction in stakes and prizes would reduce consumer appeal and amount to a de facto ban. Over-regulation would push customers to the less regulated online market and would probably lead to a surge in the black market. This would have a detrimental impact on employment in the industry and would significantly reduce tax revenue. Better regulation of the domestic gambling industry should focus on providing greater flexibility for new technology and larger stakes and prizes for venues which are higher up the regulatory pyramid.","PeriodicalId":382921,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (European) (Topic)","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Crack Cocaine of Gambling? Gambling Machines in the UK\",\"authors\":\"C. Snowdon\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2267410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper assesses the claims made about gambling machines in British betting shops, in particular ‘fixed-odds betting terminals’. These machines are routinely dubbed ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’ and it is said that players can lose £18,000 in an hour. They are blamed for a rise in problem gambling and it is alleged that Britons lose £42 billion on the machines every year. It is also claimed that betting shops have proliferated as bookmakers scramble to cash in on the popularity of the machines.The ‘crack cocaine of gambling’ label has been attached to virtually every new gambling product since the late-1980s. It is never attributed to any named individual and is akin to anti-gambling folklore. Such rhetoric is used by campaigners to attract media attention.The number of betting shops in Britain began to decline in the late 1960s and reached an all-time low at the turn of the century. Since then, there has been a slight resurgence, with numbers rising by 4.5 per cent between 2000 and 2012. These figures are not consistent with the claim that there has been a ‘dramatic proliferation’ of betting shops. Contrary to popular belief, the bookmaking industry’s gross gambling yield has fallen slightly in recent years.There is some anecdotal evidence that there is ‘clustering’ of betting shops in areas where the four machine limit is insufficient to meet demand. Insofar as this oversupply of betting shops is an issue, it can best be addressed by raising the limit. Existing evidence does not support the claim that fixed-odds betting terminals have led to a nationwide rise in problem gambling, nor do the data suggest that these machines are uniquely ‘addictive’ or seductive.The campaign against virtual gaming machines in betting shops closely resembles previous moral panics about new gambling products. The reliance on anecdotal evidence, well-worn rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims about ‘addiction’ is characteristic of similar panics which were subsequently abandoned when it became clear that the new activity was neither especially pernicious nor particularly contagious.Like other parts of the gambling sector, the bookmaking industry has responded to the market shifting towards virtual gaming. Opponents of fixed-odds betting terminals are aware than a severe reduction in stakes and prizes would reduce consumer appeal and amount to a de facto ban. Over-regulation would push customers to the less regulated online market and would probably lead to a surge in the black market. This would have a detrimental impact on employment in the industry and would significantly reduce tax revenue. Better regulation of the domestic gambling industry should focus on providing greater flexibility for new technology and larger stakes and prizes for venues which are higher up the regulatory pyramid.\",\"PeriodicalId\":382921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Regulation (European) (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Regulation (European) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2267410\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Regulation (European) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2267410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文评估了英国博彩商店中关于赌博机的说法,特别是“固定赔率投注终端”。这些机器通常被称为“赌博中的可卡因”,据说玩家可以在一小时内输掉1.8万英镑。人们指责这些机器导致了问题赌博的增加,据称英国人每年在这些机器上损失420亿英镑。据称,随着博彩公司争相从机器的受欢迎程度中获利,博彩商店也激增。自20世纪80年代末以来,几乎每一种新的赌博产品都被贴上了“赌博中的可卡因”的标签。它从未归因于任何指定的个人,类似于反赌博的民间传说。活动人士用这样的言辞来吸引媒体的注意。英国的博彩店数量在20世纪60年代末开始下降,并在世纪之交达到历史最低点。自那以来,这一数字略有回升,在2000年至2012年间增长了4.5%。这些数字与博彩商店“急剧扩散”的说法不一致。与普遍的看法相反,博彩业的总赌博收益近年来略有下降。有一些轶事证据表明,在四台机器限制不足以满足需求的地区,有“群集”的投注店。既然博彩店供过于求是一个问题,那么最好的解决办法就是提高上限。现有的证据并不支持固定赔率博彩终端导致全国范围内问题赌博上升的说法,也没有数据表明这些机器是唯一的“上瘾”或诱惑。这场针对博彩商店虚拟游戏机的运动,与此前针对新博彩产品的道德恐慌非常相似。依赖轶事证据、陈词滥调和未经证实的关于“上瘾”的说法是类似恐慌的特征,当人们发现新的活动既不是特别有害也不是特别具有传染性时,这些恐慌随后被放弃了。与博彩业的其他部分一样,博彩行业也对市场转向虚拟游戏做出了回应。固定赔率博彩终端的反对者意识到,赌注和奖金的大幅减少将降低消费者的吸引力,并相当于事实上的禁令。过度监管将把客户推向监管较少的在线市场,并可能导致黑市激增。这将对该行业的就业产生不利影响,并将大大减少税收。对国内博彩业的更好监管应侧重于为新技术提供更大的灵活性,并为处于监管金字塔较高位置的场馆提供更大的赌注和奖金。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Crack Cocaine of Gambling? Gambling Machines in the UK
This paper assesses the claims made about gambling machines in British betting shops, in particular ‘fixed-odds betting terminals’. These machines are routinely dubbed ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’ and it is said that players can lose £18,000 in an hour. They are blamed for a rise in problem gambling and it is alleged that Britons lose £42 billion on the machines every year. It is also claimed that betting shops have proliferated as bookmakers scramble to cash in on the popularity of the machines.The ‘crack cocaine of gambling’ label has been attached to virtually every new gambling product since the late-1980s. It is never attributed to any named individual and is akin to anti-gambling folklore. Such rhetoric is used by campaigners to attract media attention.The number of betting shops in Britain began to decline in the late 1960s and reached an all-time low at the turn of the century. Since then, there has been a slight resurgence, with numbers rising by 4.5 per cent between 2000 and 2012. These figures are not consistent with the claim that there has been a ‘dramatic proliferation’ of betting shops. Contrary to popular belief, the bookmaking industry’s gross gambling yield has fallen slightly in recent years.There is some anecdotal evidence that there is ‘clustering’ of betting shops in areas where the four machine limit is insufficient to meet demand. Insofar as this oversupply of betting shops is an issue, it can best be addressed by raising the limit. Existing evidence does not support the claim that fixed-odds betting terminals have led to a nationwide rise in problem gambling, nor do the data suggest that these machines are uniquely ‘addictive’ or seductive.The campaign against virtual gaming machines in betting shops closely resembles previous moral panics about new gambling products. The reliance on anecdotal evidence, well-worn rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims about ‘addiction’ is characteristic of similar panics which were subsequently abandoned when it became clear that the new activity was neither especially pernicious nor particularly contagious.Like other parts of the gambling sector, the bookmaking industry has responded to the market shifting towards virtual gaming. Opponents of fixed-odds betting terminals are aware than a severe reduction in stakes and prizes would reduce consumer appeal and amount to a de facto ban. Over-regulation would push customers to the less regulated online market and would probably lead to a surge in the black market. This would have a detrimental impact on employment in the industry and would significantly reduce tax revenue. Better regulation of the domestic gambling industry should focus on providing greater flexibility for new technology and larger stakes and prizes for venues which are higher up the regulatory pyramid.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信