As several Australian states prepare to undergo huge gambling expansions, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the impact that this will have on the community. A recent study has found that the introduction of bigger, better gambling venues may not be the best thing for local residents. A 2010 study examined poker player’s behaviour in Northern Territory (NT).
It was originally thought that smaller venues were more dangerous to players because they are more widely dispersed allowing gamblers to have easier access to pokies. However, this study establishes a new perspective and clubs and pubs are no longer considered the highest risk venues in Australia and New Zealand.
“Our findings debunked the myth that larger venues are safer. In particular, 6.7% of all casino visitors were problem gamblers,” reads a summary of the report. “The proportion increased further to 15.5% if gamblers considered ‘at moderate risk’ were included”. The study examined 7000 surveys one gambling behaviour from individuals across the country.
The researchers asked respondents which venues they visited most out of six separate groups: casinos; inner city nightclubs; bars near supermarkets; small bars in dispersed locations; large clubs near supermarkets; and small clubs in dispersed locations. Over 1000 problem gamblers admitted to being regular patrons at casinos. 513 stated that they are regular patrons of clubs that are located near supermarkets.
This illustrates that problem gamblers do gravitate towards clubs that are conveniently located; however, casinos still attract more than double the number of gambling addicts. While the results do not confirm that smaller venues are inherently more dangerous, they do show that there is a relationship between the size of a venue and its attraction to problem gamblers.
Players do tend to lose more money in bigger venues, so it is important for the local government to implement new harm minimisation strategies before investing in the construction of new casinos.
About the Author
