 |
Casino games |
 |
|
|
 |
About Gambling |
 |
|
|
|
Casino software |
|
|
|
|
Top Online Casinos |
|
|
|
|
Best casino bonus |
|
|
|
  |
| Offering one the best bonus structures anywhere on the net with $888 free; and unrivaled customer support. |
| Download and claim bonus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
U.S. casino slots players |
 |
|
|
U.S. casino slots players
In Holland, computers record the identity of every casino patron, and anyone who visits more than 15 times a month is discreetly quizzed to determine if they have a gambling problem.
In Great Britain, the government requires that slot machines display the odds of winning and the percentage of wagers they're programmed to keep.
In Singapore, ATMs aren't allowed in the country's two casinos, locals must pay $100 a day to enter, and people who get government aid or have unresolved bankruptcies are banned.
In Australia, where slots are known as "pokies," the gaming machines in the state of New South Wales won't accept large-denomination paper money. They also have limits on playing speed and betting amounts. And in Canada, the time of day and the amount of money a player spends on a slot machine are shown on its video screen. In some casinos, slots shut down after 2? hours of play to force gamblers to take periodic breaks.
Internationally, gambling providers are beginning to use the tools of "harm minimization." It's a controversial public health approach, akin to distributing clean needles to heroin users, that strives to lessen gambling's potentially damaging effects while not necessarily curbing the overall activity. Scientists are still debating how well the tactics work, and they have not been in use long enough, or in enough locations, to determine if they are having any significant impact on gambling addiction rates.
However, governments and casino operators in other countries are moving ahead. Their actions stem from a tradition of social welfare and the fact that, in many cases, the casinos are government-run, making them more directly answerable to the public. The strategies acknowledge some responsibility to protect gamblers -- especially slots players -- from themselves.
But in the United States, where casinos are corporate-owned and the prevailing public attitude toward over-indulgence is to "just say no," the onus remains almost entirely on the individual bettor, not the gaming provider or the government, to avoid gambling's pitfalls.
"The [harm-reduction] discussion is barely in its infancy in the United States, even though it's well-advanced around the world," said Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling. The protective measures increasingly found in foreign casinos are practically unheard of here. They're rejected by the American gambling industry as unproven, overzealous, too hard or costly to implement, a nuisance to everyday gamblers, and an intrusion on personal freedoms.
American casinos primarily rely on education and "self-exclusion" programs, in which a problem player voluntarily asks to be kept out of the gambling hall. Some gambling treatment experts question whether a person in the grip of addiction can recognize the need to stay away, much less have the wherewithal to do so on their own.
But casinos don't routinely check adults' ID cards on entry to determine if they're on the self-exclusion list. Moreover, U.S. courts consistently have ruled that casinos are under no legal obligation to enforce their own self-exclusion programs. In fact, gambling operators have prevailed in lawsuits where addicted patrons have gotten back in, and even in cases where casinos have lured excluded players to return with special gambling offers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
