Dressing down: Web gambling’s hallmark

UNLV study finds online betting areas thick with bullying, foul-mouthed players, repelling some, enticing others

Chris Morris

Wed, Jul 23, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Reader poll

Nevadans don’t show extraordinary interest in online betting (1-11-2008)
Gaming’s new frontier (11-23-2007)

CNBC: Is it Getting Harder to Get Your (Online) Gambling Money? (7-22-2008)

The long-running debate over whether to legalize Internet gambling has usually focused on its potential to be more addictive than gambling in a casino.

A new study by researchers at UNLV and the University of Western Ontario largely side-steps that issue and instead suggests online casinos can be harsher environments than the bricks-and-mortar casinos most Las Vegans frequent.

Based on 90-minute interviews with 30 Las Vegas gamblers, researchers touched on an aspect of online gambling mostly ignored in the political discourse: that it can be a negative environment dominated by bullying, foul-mouthed players who prowl gambling chat rooms.

Donna — participants’ last names were withheld by researchers to protect their identities — reported being harassed while gambling online, including by one player who stalked her by phone. She said she learned to ignore the live chats that accompany online games but still gambled only when her husband was sitting nearby to “protect” her.

“When I clicked off (a poker game), I was crying,” Donna told researchers. “I let a complete stranger who was online, who didn’t know me, I didn’t know him, hurt me. If it was in person, it would be different.”

Another online gambler told researchers she was often called derogatory names in the accompanying chat area after winning a poker hand. Unlike some study participants who shied away from online bullies, Alice said she thrived on confrontation and enjoyed the heightened atmosphere of competition online.

“There’s this guy online that I can’t stand,” she said. “So that’s a challenge, and whenever I do beat him I feel great.”

Online gamblers are hardly surprised by the findings. Bullying and foul language are common in all kinds of Internet chat rooms regardless of their focus, they say.

“It’s Internet 101 — on the Internet, people don’t care what you think personally,” said Steven McLoughlin, a volunteer online moderator for Two Plus Two, a Las Vegas gambling book publisher that runs a gambling discussion forum attracting some 18,000 posts daily.

Poker players have a name for such online anarchists (trolls) and their bullying (flaming).

Losing money can inspire bad behavior online, said McLoughlin, but bullies also abound in bricks-and-mortar casinos.

Casino gamblers in the study found comfort being around other people, seeing familiar faces and interacting, though superficially, with employees. They also reported more emotional highs and lows than online gamblers. Some preferred visiting casinos because they offered an escape with stimulating surroundings.

“Sometimes the floor people will come up and touch me, or ask how you (are) doing, put their hand on my shoulders, rub my shoulders for good luck ... it makes me feel good,” said Lorraine, a casino gambler.

Paid for by a grant from the research fund at UNLV’s William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, the study is unusual in that it wasn’t funded by the casino industry, researchers who are opposed to casinos or those who make a living treating or studying gambling addictions. Its small sample size and reliance on in-depth interviews limits its scientific or political usefulness, but it still adds to the growing body of research on Internet gambling.

Gamblers in the UNLV study weren’t asked about gambling addiction, but rather what gambling meant to them and what motivated them to gamble online versus in bricks-and-mortar casinos. Researchers asked gamblers, 20 of whom primarily visited casinos and 10 of whom mostly gambled online, to create visual collages representing their feelings about gambling.

Alice, to illustrate how she felt about gambling online, showed a cartoon character fighting off a pack of bulldogs.

The study comes as the debate heats up around Internet gambling, which is the focus of at least five bills circulating through Congress.

The study doesn’t conveniently serve arguments for or against legalization of online gambling and therefore is unlikely to register in the debate. But it does offer a glimpse into an activity that is growing in popularity and is little understood by many involved in the debate.

Players in the political debate interpreted the study in contradictory ways.

Members of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling found distressing an anecdote from a young mother who involves her husband and 4-year-old daughter when she gambles online.

“If I win something big, I can experience it with my daughter,” Brittany told researchers. “At a casino, she wouldn’t be able to sit there and have that kind of enjoyment with me ... she gets excited when she hears the noise on the computer.”

Also distasteful to coalition representatives was the illusion of greater control some participants felt when they gambled online versus in a casino.

Online gambler Cleo acknowledged to researchers chasing her losses shortly after claiming to feel more in control of her gambling: “I took five times what I’d (initially) lost and lost it ... It depressed me.”

Coalition Chairman Dr. Guy Clark said banning Internet gambling makes more sense than regulation because bricks-and-mortar casinos are already doing a “lousy job” of keeping kids from hanging around casinos and restricting gambling addicts’ access.

Michael Waxman, a spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, latched onto the study’s recommendation that online gambling be regulated. He agreed with some of the protections suggested by researchers, including gambling counselor hotlines and “cooling off” periods for gamblers on losing streaks.

“What (prohibitionists) are basically saying is that ‘We want the status quo’ when the status quo is that millions of people are gambling online, without any regulations to protect consumers,” Waxman said.

Co-author and UNLV associate professor Kathryn LaTour has conducted several studies on consumers’ motivations. Like many Nevadans, LaTour supports regulation. But she is more interested in exploring the range of experiences reported by gamblers in a town where gambling is a fact of life.

“It’s interesting that we have all these options for gambling in Las Vegas, but these people really prefer being in their pajamas and sitting at their home computers,” she said.

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

By azsk8fan

7/23/08 at 7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Most of these chat boxes can be turned off - so to those being 'harrassed' TURN IT OFF. As for the one who was harrassed over the phone - hmmmm - wonder how they got her phone number. Give me a break - adults who earn their money should have every right to spend it however they want as long as they understand that the government is NOT obligated to help them out if they go broke.
By mikeg

7/23/08 at 8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Do people even gamble online anymore? I assumed this was about poker, which I thought was illegal nowadays. Not to mention boring as heck. I think reading War and Peace would make for a more exciting evening.
By CactusJack

7/23/08 at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Poker is not illegal online, never has been. Sadly, poker is lumped into the broad category of online gambling, while bridge, hearts and other card games are not. Poker is/should be a separate issue.

However, it's more about the right to make your own decisions. Those who would make online gambling illegal are saying they have the right to take away your decision about what to do with your money in your home. That is abominable and Un-American! If we continue to allow our rights to be taken away, we will soon have no rights at all, including the right to protest.

CJ
By azsk8fan

7/23/08 at 9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mikeg, To each his own. Some want to read and some want to play poker online (which my husband does NOT find boring) and others like to use online casino's and play slot machines. The issue is that when a person WORKS and earns their own money they should have a right to spend it however they please as long as it's not morally wrong or exploitive of others. As long as adults venture into these CHOICES being fully aware that they can't expect the government (ie taxpayers) to support them if they lose everything they should be able to make their own informed decisions. When the government starts telling people how they can/can't spend their money it's truly the beginning of the end.

As for War and Peace - nah, I'll take a pass.
By mikeg

7/23/08 at 10:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wow that's a lot of qualifiers you've lumped in with that statement, "azsk8fan". I think maybe the laws are aimed at the many foolish people out there who do not have control of their gambling addictions, and do lose everything. This is Vegas, it happens. So the point is that most people are not as careful with their gambling problem as you are.
By CactusJack

7/24/08 at 1:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

I play poker, and am deeply involved in the industry, both online and live. I don't bet sports, play pit games (don't even know how), and have never played slots except once before a show, penny slots for free cokes because two were seven bucks at the bar. Poker is not a game for gambling addicts. It's too slow. Not enough action. It is a game of skill, at the least the way winners play. ;)

Online gambling could, if legal and regulated by something like the Nevada Gaming Commission, have actually more safeguards against underage gambling and problem gamblers. There are many more ways for an online casino to spot both and provide services to the latter. Unfortunately, the online casinos as they are now, have no oversight. This needs to be addressed and hopefully will be with a change in Administrations.
By azsk8fan

7/24/08 at 6:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

First of all, Mikeg, I do NOT have a gambling problem (as you put it) truth is that while my husband plays poker online I don't gamble at all. As far as people and their addictions it is still my contention that it's THEIR problem and society should not have to have big brother directing where/when they can spend their money simply because SOME apparently are too stupid to A. GET HELP or B. DON'T GAMBLE. I don't want any form of government telling me that just because my neighbor has a 'gambling problem' that 'I' can't do as I please. Help is out there for those who seek it - if not - too bad, so sad - and again, I'll spend my money where/how I see fit in spite of anyone else's issues.
By nortongaming

7/24/08 at 6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

In the July 13 Boston Globe, Matt Viser reported on the position of U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., regarding Internet gaming. Rep. Frank is 100 percent correct that individuals should be able to make their own decisions on how to spend their discretionary dollars, even if this spending goes toward casino gaming or the state lottery.

His stance on allowing Internet gaming should be expanded to include a tax rate that puts the Internet in a position that is no more favorable than commercial casinos, racetrack slot operations or various state lotteries.

Since Internet casinos have little in capital expenditures, like the $1 billion or more of a resort casino, and will be very competitive with any state lottery, their taxes should provide, at a minimum, a comparable percentage of revenue to that state's lottery. Certainly Internet casinos could pay taxes similar to the various racetrack casinos that generally vary from 50 percent to 60 percent of the slot machine win.

They also should pay license fees for the right to offer their service in any state; that depends on a bidding process or a statutory initiative. In Pennsylvania, the one-time fee for a slot casino is $50 million, and in Indiana, $250 million.

Additionally, to keep the games honest and the operators suitable, there should be an approval process before issuing a license, and continuous oversight like that provided by a gaming or racing oversight agency, similar to those existing in all commercial gaming states.

Another major concern is how to stop minors from gambling at their homes? Even children as young as 3 years are proficient on the computer and Internet today and play games more difficult to understand than casino games.

Clearly, compulsive gambling is the gaming industry's major negative impact, and I always felt that state lotteries caused the biggest problem because of their convenience, in every community, in those states offering lottery games. But the Internet is that much more convenient, at work and at home, and there must be a foolproof way to stop those under 21 (or 18 in some states) from risking real money.

America is already gaming on the Internet illegally, and the United States has found it nearly impossible to eliminate it, even after stopping the use of credit cards. But the U.S. has received an unfair trade practice ruling from the World Trade Organization regarding a suit brought against us by Antigua and Barbuda over their Internet gaming operations, and it could be that Internet gaming may be inevitable.

Let's make sure U.S. states get suitable taxes and fees, so that the Internet is not offering unfair competition to the gaming that is already legal in most states, including lotteries, casinos, racing, Jai-alai, poker and charity bingo, and let's make sure minors are protected!

Steve Norton