expert advice or just chat?

SOJ, no disrespect, but you are preaching to the choir. Discussion is good. Having an open mind is productive. Your points are well taken, but one size does not fit all.

StoppedOnJune2016 wrote:Well, I have to disagree with you NSR, because gambling is not something that can be controlled by addicts, and it is proven.
There are poker players who played on television, won millions of dollars and lost it all.

Moderation is not a word for an addict.
People who come to this forum should not be told about moderation, it would only hurt them more.
People who "gamble in moderation" are in huge risk to become addicts.

There is no difference between smoking and gambling.
I would not let my child take not even 1 cigarette in his life, it's non-negotiable.
Gambling should be the same.

Stoppedonjune, did you have a look at those examples of researchers I posted, as you were asking whether any professionals could be given as examples who support controlled gambling?
I think you need to realise that saying words like 'proven' is too strong in these sort of issues - researchers show actual examples that go against your claim of 'proven'.

BC, I did look at your recommendations and found them quite interesting. Won't comment on them here.

betterchange wrote:Stoppedonjune, did you have a look at those examples of researchers I posted, as you were asking whether any professionals could be given as examples who support controlled gambling?
I think you need to realise that saying words like 'proven' is too strong in these sort of issues - researchers show actual examples that go against your claim of 'proven'.

Is that the same research funded by bookmakers?
There are tons of so called 'experts' and 'researchers' who advocate for 'controlled gambling' - why not?

Today federal banks keep lower interest rate and some 'experts' support them too - the real experts, the genuine ones refer to what they do as global financial terrorism.

I agree there are 2 sides for each coin, but when I say "proven" I don't need an expert to prove what so many people in this forum described over and over again .... so many of them tried to "control their gambling" and ended up losing more and not only losing money but their own personal lives as well.

I truly wish some other members would come and read all this discussion and post what they really think about the so called "controlled gambling" but unfortunately this thread has become a mega-thread and mega-threads usually push away many members from reading the whole thing.

SOJ, I do not think anyone is arguing with you. Your points are well taken. This is just chat!

Reading this thread for me is just a healthy discussion.let us face it that its better to advocate or support the idea of really just quitting gambling for good.Controlled gambling or even responsible gambling is a risky thing to advocate or imply especially to those members of this forum who deeply turned their lives a total mess(Financially,emotionally,physically etc).We all know that controlled gambling is simply going back to gambling which will eventually hurt as some more for sure in the end.I suggest let us continue living a gambling free life and forget about the idea of controlled gambling. Dont waste money anymore through gambling.LIFE IS BETTER WITHOUT GAMBLING!YOU CANT GET AHEAD IN LIFE WITH GAMBLING!

-- Thu Sep 08, 2016 7:32 am --

Reading this thread for me is just a healthy discussion.let us face it that its better to advocate or support the idea of really just quitting gambling for good.Controlled gambling or even responsible gambling is a risky thing to advocate or imply especially to those members of this forum who deeply turned their lives a total mess(Financially,emotionally,physically etc).We all know that controlled gambling is simply going back to gambling which will eventually hurt as some more for sure in the end.I suggest let us continue living a gambling free life and forget about the idea of controlled gambling. Dont waste money anymore through gambling.LIFE IS BETTER WITHOUT GAMBLING!YOU CANT GET AHEAD IN LIFE WITH GAMBLING!

This is actually an interesting discussion, though not the precise one I meant when I started this post (on a different forum too should add)!

I agree that for many simple abstinence is the best principle to adopt, no argument. But, for some, equally that may not be the best approach, that's the simple issue here.

There is an implicit assumption in some of the points made here that abstinence always 'works' for the problem gambler, unfortunately I don't think we could say that's true - relapses in people treated that way are an obvious example of failure of that way of treating the problem, and who would argue that no-one has relapsed after abstinence? I don't think anyone could.

StoppedOnJune2016 wrote:

betterchange wrote:Stoppedonjune, did you have a look at those examples of researchers I posted, as you were asking whether any professionals could be given as examples who support controlled gambling?
I think you need to realise that saying words like 'proven' is too strong in these sort of issues - researchers show actual examples that go against your claim of 'proven'.

Is that the same research funded by bookmakers?
There are tons of so called 'experts' and 'researchers' who advocate for 'controlled gambling' - why not?

This seems a rather strange claim - these are professional Psychologists and researchers, nothing to do with bookmakers (they don't fund this research, that I do know). What they want is to understand both the problems and the best treatments for the problem.

-- Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:54 am --

I think it should just be clarified, again, that no-one is suggesting anyone should just go off and start gambling again. That is not controlled gambling. Even if someone thinks they can be controlled alone, they can't I agree. This would only ever be done under expert help and guidance.

betterchange wrote:This seems a rather strange claim - these are professional Psychologists and researchers, nothing to do with bookmakers (they don't fund this research, that I do know). What they want is to understand both the problems and the best treatments for the problem.

I don't see what I'm claiming as strange ... I see people who blindly go after "experts" and praise them and think they are the solutions for all the troubles - making just a very big mistake.

The last brexit vote has proven and shown what so many people think about the so called experts (and I was for Remain by the way).

Experts are people who work for money, they won't do things for free.
If they bother to investigate gambling there is a party involved, at least very likely.
That's just common sense, otherwise why would they bother with it?

If they do it for free - they would definitely not advocate for the "Controlled Gambling" you seem to support or maybe not support but claim that there is a possibility for it.

Being an expert is based on what - having a degree?
If there are so many smart psychologists out there - why can't they stop the high degree and rate of divorce globally? How come my sister in law is getting a divorce after meeting a very high expert with her husband for 2 years and eventually wasting tons of money that gone in vein? Why such experts seem to "take their time" resolving issues and not guiding the couple directly without calling them in for meetings after meetings? What's the rational for psychologist to have a patient to visit him just once? Most psychologists would automatically tell you that you need to come for at least 10 meetings, and they would unscrupulously lie to you on your face by telling you that so, just for them to have another "long term" patient (I'm being completely honest about it).

Bottom line what I'm trying to tell you is that your "experts" are not necessarily worth the opinion they are giving out ... I'm not saying we don't need accountants, we don't need engineers ... I'm building a house with my wife and we do look for good experts in the field (good architect etc.) - but if there was a truly smart expert who could resolve the gambling problem (just like smoking is widely getting resolved nowadays) - then maybe that person should be the one to listen to - but as it stands gambling remains a huge problem, nobody has solved it and there are only unknown treatments that people can try. That's the bottom line in 2016.

StoppedOnJune2016 wrote:

betterchange wrote:This seems a rather strange claim - these are professional Psychologists and researchers, nothing to do with bookmakers (they don't fund this research, that I do know). What they want is to understand both the problems and the best treatments for the problem.

Experts are people who work for money, they won't do things for free.
If they bother to investigate gambling there is a party involved, at least very likely.
That's just common sense, otherwise why would they bother with it?

I doubt any would argue with the fact that these professionals get paid.
But they are paid by Universities.

If anything, in the academic research I'd say there is the opposite bias to what you suggest - they are mostly very anti-gambling in bias, partly because they deal with problem gambling I guess.

In answer to your other point about what makes an expert - I think this is missing the point, which is that these studies are about evidence that is gathered by experts. So, yes, these people are well qualified, but they are qualified to collect and understand evidence. That is the key.

No research is ever the complete picture, of course, it's just part of the bigger picture. But it should also not be ignored. Overall, you seem to trying to make more definite suggestions than anyone else posting here, as others are open to all angles with this, but you want to suggest you have one true view only. That I think is rather ironic when you're questioning the right to present views and evidence...