A psychological study unveiled at the convention of the American Psychological Association makes a bold claim: that 2 percent of all gamblers account for nearly 25 percent of all casino wins and losses. From Science Daily:
In another study, psychologist Arch G. Woodside, PhD, of Boston College, and Ralph Perfetto, PhD, of the University of Rhode Island, found that while most people do not gamble, the majority who do gamble, do so most weeks of the year. They have moderate incomes and are at the highest risk for financial and psychological trouble.
Using data from the annual DDB Needham Life Style Survey, Woodside and Perfetto looked at casino gambling patterns among 20,568 adults from 1993 to 1998. They found that less than 2 percent of all casino gamblers are responsible for nearly 25 percent of all casino gambling wins and losses – referred to as the extreme or X-gamblers. The authors identified three sub-types of X-gamblers. "Whales," are mostly white, middle-aged men with high incomes who go to casinos most weeks of the year. They spend the most money. "Jumbo shrimp" are mostly older white females with very low incomes and visit casinos most weeks of the year. Finally, "big fish" are very frequent gamblers with moderate incomes and make up more than half the X-gamblers. Most middle-income X-gamblers come from mixed demographic backgrounds. X-gamblers visited casinos 25 times or more a year.
"Understanding the demographics and the different influences that play into gambling can help psychologists tailor their interventions for people who get into trouble," said Woodside. "Moderate-income X-gamblers – big fish – are at the most risk for losing the most money and suffering the most overwhelming financial and psychological consequences. The whales can afford to lose money and the jumbo shrimps don’t have much money to lose."
Americans Spending, Gambling, Saving: Who’s Happiest, Who’s Most At Risk?.
I’m going to try to get a copy of this study to examine the methodology. I’d like to see how they calculated what percentage of customers are responsible for what percentage of casino revenue. I always thought that you couldn’t do that with any certainty unless you had 100% of all players using player-tracking cards and, of course, access to the data.
I also threw up a little when I read the phrase “extreme or X-gamblers.” Well, not literally, but I did in my mind. It just sounds like radical dudes slamming Mountain Dew, skating down to their local casino, doing a wicked railslide down the handicapped entrance, and taking keno to the Xtreme. And the whole gambler food chain–whales, big fish, jumbo shrimp–seems a bit simplistic as well. I’m all for presenting your material so that it’s accessible to the masses, but come on.
I’ve emailed one of the authors to get a copy. If I do, I’ll follow up with a more comprehensive critique.
Seriously–I know people who think that “disordered gaming” is a euphemism. I think that “pathological gambling” sounds too pop psychology-ish (like “pathological liar’), so I’ve always preferred “problem gambling.” But “extreme gambling” just sounds like people with bad tattoos and ill-advised piercings hitting “max bet.”