Casino Inducement Vs Convenience

Posted: November 3, 2010 in Uncategorized

Contributed by:  Jason Khoo

3rd Nov 2010     Wed

Can Singapore social scientists come to grip with casino behavour?


Those who constantly read and monitor the Integrated Resorts, especially news of how the Lion City State’s local population are being targeted by the casinos; some might have already come to the conclusion that some social scientists in Singapore are still in the bushes and in the dark, trying desperately to come up with ideas on how to mitigate casino’s negative impact to the society.

Some of the ideas been implemented are: 

(1)  Exclusion (from casino) by family.  This is by far the most effective means of up-front control for problem gambling.

(2)  Place ATM machines outside the casino floor, but still within the IR premises.  This is ineffective.  Such inconveniences merely meant for show and does not deter gamblers.

(3)  Stop free shuttle buses (run by casinos) to the heartland housing estates.  This is a correct and decisive action by the authority.  Because casino shuttle buses to the housing estates are considered a powerful inducement platform.  Shuttle buses to housing estates would inevitably produce this outcome – increase in local families’ casino visit frequency and, reinforce their gambling (risk taking) behaviour!

(4)  Entrance fees for locals entering casino.  This is effective as an immediate short-term control measure. But in the long-run, when local population get used to the level of such “risk-taking pricing”, such measure will end up no different from the Electronic Road Pricing system (ERP) on the island’s transportation control.  People get used to that and continue to buy cars.  Hence, the threshold of pain imposed on casino entrance (for locals) should increase based on local population’s casino gambling trends. 

(5)  Anti-problem gambling campaigns.  The media news publicity of a few millionaires losing a couple of million dollars in casino is not an effective mode of deterrence for the commoners. Many would be more intrigued by the stories and start to experience casino gambling.  Campaigns should target on critical core society members such as, young families, youth development programs and deep into risk-reward vis-a-vis long-term liability.  

In summary, anti-problem gambling must focus on cutting off Inducements rather than taking the softer approach of making it inconvenient.  Once a patron is being Induced and Converted, it becomes very difficult to stop (gambling).  So the key word is INDUCEMENT.  Lion City State’s able and brilliant social scientists should not bark up the wrong tree and continue to suggest the remover of convenient stuff.  Such indirect (or rather, soft) approach does not yield rewards…

Yet another latest suggestion is to question whether local patrons should be allowed to pay the casino entrance fees ($100 for single trip and $2,000 for yearly trips) at the post office’s or the banks’ automated payment machines? (S.A.M. or AXS machine as they called it).  The reason is that it is too convenient for locals to pay the fees and hence, encourage gambling behaviour.  Remember, this machine (payment method) is not an inducement.  So, disallowing people to pay casino entrance fees via the AXS machines is ineffective in changing gambling behaviour.  Cut off inducements!

  1. As we’re on Casino Inducement Vs Convenience Professional Ground DECODER, You no longer have to reside inside a place where there is a casino. With a pc and a connection to the Web, anyone more than the authorized age of 21 can gamble correct from their own homes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s