Illinois Update

Video gambling in non-casino locations came to Illinois in September, 2012. Eligible bars, truck stops, and other locales can host up to five video gambling terminals in an adults-only portion of their establishments. There are now more than 16,000 video gambling terminals operating in Illinois at a total of more than 4,000 establishments. There is no self-exclusion system in place for gamblers on these machines. These thousands of locations and small-scale operations are cited as reasons that a self-exclusion program would not be implementable, but the fact that the locations are adult-only means that there must already be in place a system capable of checking IDs.

The article linked above (and here) offers a few statistics on Illinois's statewide casino self-exclusion plan. In mid-April, 2014, there were more than 10,600 people on the self-exclusion list. Since the initiation of the program in 2002, "there have been 3,477 instances where self-excluded gamblers had been caught [in violation of their exclusion orders], with 3,399 of the incidents resulting in arrests." Many of these violators are caught when they win a jackpot exceeding $1,200, as the collection of such winnings requires identification. When a "winner" is found to be on the self-excluded list, he or she is not allowed to keep the jackpot. So far, casinos have "confiscated $1.5 million of winnings from self-excluded gamblers, who then get to decide which of three addiction centers their money goes to."

[The headline and the early part of the linked article might be confusing to the Self-Exclusion reader, as these refer to excluding some undesirable people from operating on the supply side of video gambling. The material on voluntary exclusions for gamblers comes later in the article.]

Comparative Exclusions

Population of Illinois: 12,882,135 (estimated, 2013).
Number of people in Illinois Casino Self-Exclusion Program: 9,637 (end of 2012; the Self-Exclusion Program was founded in 2002).

Population of Singapore: 5,399,200 (estimated, mid-2013).
Number of people in Singapore's Casino Self-Exclusion Program: 175,680 (late 2013; the Self-Exclusion Program -- including Family Exclusions and Third-Party Exclusions -- was begun in 2009. Some 90% of those on the excluded list are foreigners who live or work in Singapore).

Committing Not to Procrastinate...

...or committing to write? A couple years ago Self-Exclusion used the example of a week-long dissertation writing-lock-in, one with $50 at stake for the volunteer participants, to muse on positive and negative commitments, commitments to do something versus commitments to refrain from doing something. A similar writing event was hosted by the University of Chicago this summer -- one of four now held every year. A new wrinkle is that the write-in was held off-campus, which presumably puts the usual quotidian distractions of the participating graduate students somewhat out of reach. After the four hours of work are complete, there's a lunchtime program:

The common barriers to writing—perfectionism and daily distractions—fall away through the program’s rigid structure and community spirit. During the lunch break, speakers from the many offices on campus that serve graduate students address common questions and problems, such as how to submit a dissertation or where to go for career advice on campus.

The community spirit angle is interesting, as it is a dimension that is missing from garden-style casino self-exclusion. It is a commonplace that gambling exclusion works better when it is paired with a treatment regimen, and perhaps the treatment in part serves as a source of social support.

Once again, $50 is at stake for the dissertation writers, and one of those lunchtime services consists of a free massage. Further, in what surely is a major incentive for U of C graduate students, those who put in the 20 hours of interruption-free work during the week receive a Latin-inscripted tee shirt:

And if the satisfaction of marching toward that PhD weren’t enough reward, the students who complete each session get a T-shirt from Graduate Student Affairs that says scribo, ergo conficiam—“I write, therefore I finish.”

Illinois Video Gaming Terminals

The state of Illinois is rolling out legal Video Gaming Terminals (VGTs); soon they will number in the thousands, placed in bars and restaurants and bowling alleys and so on. VGTs will not be available everywhere in Illinois, however, as many municipalities, including Chicago, have opted out.

The machines are limited to a payout of $500; one credit can cost no more than 25 cents, and a single play (multiple lines are available) cannot put the gambler back more than $2. (The technical standards (38-page pdf here) surprisingly make for some interesting reading: no "near misses," for instance (page 24).) But the VGTs are noted on this blog because it appears that there is no self-exclusion program connected to them -- at least I could find no mention of an applicable exclusion program at the relevant sections of the Illinois Gaming Board website. Of course, the scores of small-scale locations -- no venue can have more than 5 VGTs -- makes it harder to enforce a casino-like "no presence and no play" version of self-exclusion. But the Illinois Lottery offers a "no wins" version that is considerably easier to implement, even if it is far from foolproof: when a self-excluded player tries to collect a large win, the necessity to provide a social security number presents the enforceable moment. Why not something like that for VGTs, requiring identification, say, to collect wins of $100 or more?

Self-Reporting Self-Exclusion Enforcement Lapses

The purposely enigmatic title of this post refers to those occasions when a self-excluded gambler sneaks back into the casino, or is sent promotional material that is verboten under the exclusion agreement. The problem is, of course, that excluded gamblers are among the best customers for a casino. Casino owners, therefore, would seem to have a significant monetary incentive to look the other way when a self-excluder presents him or herself at the gambling venue. To counter this incentive, regulators subject casinos to fines when they fail to enforce exclusion agreements. An Illinois casino once was fined $800,000 for marketing to self-excluded customers.

The newest (and most popular) Illinois casino is the Rivers Casino in Des Plaines, which opened in July, 2011. It was a little slow in figuring out this self-exclusion thing, though: "In its first few weeks of operation, the northwest suburban casino sent promotional materials to four people, authorized two cash advances to one person and issued players’ rewards cards to seven others, all of whom are in the self-exclusion program, said Gene O’Shea, spokesman for the Illinois Gaming Board." The fine was $25,000, which represents a discount due to the self-reporting of the violations.

Attempted violations of self-exclusion orders are common. Rivers Casino, according to the linked article, caught 149 people on the self-exclusion list at the casino premises through March 1, 2012.

Illinois Casinos and Self-Exclusion

The lack of recent posting is due to my neglect and not to any slowdown of developments in the fast-paced world of exclusion and other commitment devices. One neglected article from last October contained some interesting information about the state-wide casino self-exclusion program right here in Illinois. Here are three tidbits:

(1) "Harrah’s employees receive a $500 reward if they catch one of the individuals from that [self-exclusion] database in their casino."

(2) There are over 8,500 people on the Illinois self-exclusion list, which dates to 2002. Since that time, over 1,700 arrests have been made, presumably for excluded gamblers trespassing on casino property.

(3) The Illinois exclusion program involves a duration of five years, but reinstatement as an eligible gambler requires that a counselor provide an affidavit indicating that the individual is capable of controlled gambling. "More than 30 self-excluders have attempted to be removed from the list, the gaming board says. However, none of them have been able to provide sufficient evidence..." Wow.

Thanks to the author of the article, John Solymossy, for digging a little deeper than often is the case.

Update: The FAQ section of the Illinois Gaming Board's Self-Exclusion website gives a slightly different interpretation on reinstatement. Here it is:

The Illinois Self-Exclusion Program is for life. Removal from the list of Self-Excluded persons is very difficult. After five years a Self-Excluded person may request removal from the Self-Exclusion List. However, in order to be removed from the Self-Exclusion List, a Self-Excluded person must provide an affidavit from a licensed mental health professional who is also a certified gambling addictions counselor. The affidavit, which must be addressed to the Administrator of the Illinois Gaming Board, must attest and confirm that the licensed, certified gambling addictions counselor has determined that the Self-Excluded person no longer is a problem gambler and can gamble responsibly. Obtaining such an affidavit will be difficult.  The Administrator will take such an affidavit into consideration when deciding if a person should be removed from the Self-Exclusion List. If the submission meets the requirements for removal, there may be further investigation required by the IGB before considering the request. The IGB’s legal staff may also seek public action from the five members of the Illinois Gaming Board in order to remove a Self-Excluded person from the Self-Exclusion List.  In addition, a person seeking removal from the Self-Exclusion List must provide the following:

• Documentation as to treatment received for the person’s gambling problem, length of treatment, and names and qualifications of treatment providers.

• A written recommendation, from a qualified mental health professional who is a certified gambling counselor, as to the person's capacity to participate in gambling without adverse health and mental health risks or consequences related to gambling.  “Certified gambling counselor" means an individual who has completed a specific course of study in the treatment of problem gambling and has been certified by a certification organization acceptable to the Board. Those organizations include the following: National Council on Problem Gambling, American Compulsive Gambling Counselor Certification Board and the Illinois Dept of Human Services.

• Upon request of the Administrator, a written recommendation, from a second or subsequent physician or qualified mental health professional who is a certified gambling counselor, as to the self-excluded person's capacity to participate in gambling without adverse health and mental health risks or consequences related to gambling.

• All information required under Section 3000.755(a), including name, address, date of birth, social security number, a copy of the person’s driver’s license, a physical description and a current photograph.

• A statement informing the Administrator whether the person has been present at any riverboat gaming operations while on the Self-Exclusion List and, if so, the names of the riverboat operations at which the person was present and dates and times of attendance.

• A waiver of liability of the Board, its agents and the State of Illinois for any damages that may arise out of any act or omission committed by the person as a consequence of his or her removal from the Self-Exclusion List, including any monetary or other damages sustained in connection with the person's renewal of any gaming activities.

• A verified, written consent to the release of all of the person's medical and counseling records related to the proposed removal from the Self-Exclusion List.

• Any additional information, forms, recommendations, or other materials necessary, as determined by the Administrator, to demonstrate the elimination of the mental health or medical condition underlying the person's acknowledgement that he or she has been a problem gambler and unable to gamble responsibly.

Lottery Self-Exclusion

Casino self-exclusion schemes generally combine physical unavailability with reward diminution: the casino tries to keep you away, and if you do gamble, they try to prevent you from collecting winnings. Lottery self-exclusion, however, seems to involve only reward diminution. Lottery outlets will sell disassociated persons all the tickets that they want, but the state lottery authorities will not allow the self-excluded to collect large wins. In both Illinois and Iowa, for instance, "large wins" are those involving $600 or more.

If all of the monetary and hedonic reward from gambling could be removed, then making gambling physically unavailable would offer little improvement in combatting problem gambling. Alternatively, if physical unavailability were perfect, reward diminution would be superfluous. But in practice, both barriers to availability and diminished rewards are imperfect and subject to evasion -- and both make a contribution towards controlling problem gambling.

Placing a bet as a commitment to undertaking a personal reform -- a' la stickK.com -- involves a form of reward diminution: fail to reform and you have to pay a self-imposed fine. Public pronouncements of an intention to reform establish another version of reward diminution: failure to reform will cost you some respect in the eyes of your peers, along with some self-respect, perhaps. But many people trying to reform a bad habit try to institute both physical unavailability and reward diminution. For instance, they adopt a rule not to keep any ice cream in the house, and then feel guilty (and possibly lose self-respect as well as the respect of others) when they violate their rule and consume the now-available ice cream.

Making Self-Exclusion Work Better

While Vice Squad is a big proponent of the principle of vice self-exclusion programs, the practice in US casinos leaves much to be desired. It seems to be relatively easy, for instance, for some self-excluded gamblers to return to a casino without much hindrance. A check of IDs for all gamblers, or a more universal use of smart cards that hook into gambling machines, might help to make self-exclusion programs more reliable.

One of the standard features of a self-exclusion program is that someone who has volunteered to join the excluded ranks is removed from the list of those who are sent promotional material. This is another area of slippage between theory and practice, apparently. The Illinois Gaming Board is fining a casino $800,000 for not sealing off the self-excluded from marketing appeals. The same casino received a $600,000 fine for similar activities two years ago. I would think that these significant fines will concentrate casino minds on providing a more effective barrier between their promotions and self-excluded gamblers.