This is the gambling research he has cherry picked from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737691/
A few things to note:
1) it is a bit of proper research, solid stuff, big nationwide sample.
2) whilst published in 2009 it is using 2000/2001 data
3) The figures quoted are lifetime incidence NOT current rates. This makes them look higher when comparing them to other similar surveys on current behaviour/prevalence
4) He uses disordered gambling (AKA at risk) not pathological gambling (AKA Problem Gambling which again means a higher figure.
5) He uses the way that black comes up at a higher rate and then adds in that
poorer groups report greater disordered gambling* as if they are cumulative factors. They are not - of the black disordered gamblers 64.9% were in the lowest income group vs 45.0% of whites - this strongly suggests that low income is the driver of the higher lifetime rate for blacks, given the income disparity overall
6) Among disordered gamblers, significantly more Blacks than Whites were women**(45.9% vs. 27.9% respectively;
* The way DSM-IV surveys work many of the questions are about the financial impact, ie leading to you being helped by relatives, having to borrow, stealing, lieing to family. This is fair enough but it is not unreasonable to assume that these hurdles are much lower for those on the lowest incomes. They may gamble very little but be more likely to lie about it. This potential bias is stronger for the lesser disordered gambling
** For women and low income women there is some evidence that guilt helps trigger DSM-IV positive responses. Preocupation and gambling to escape circumstance as well as the usual poverty pressures.
So - to sum up, yes he was discussing race and problem gambling but pretty much legitimately, what he missed though was that most of the delta is down to income not race and a higher rate for women amongst blacks than whites. The hispanics meanwhile don't really come out different at all and despit what some other studies have shown neither did Asian Americans
Where he does jump the shark though is to make a wild claim that because blacks and hispanics have a higher take up of smart phones (I suspect linked to lower home internet access rates but I'm guessing) this makes them uniquely vulnerable to problem online gambling. There is absolutely no evidence to support this at all. Indeed as the main data was 200/2001 pre smart phone anyway it is an odd claim indeed.
The core thing to remember about Problem Gambling rates and the Internet is that in pretty much every longitudinal study we find that problem gambling rates are stable or declining over the period of pre Internet and Internet gambling and post Internet/Internet gambling. It has made no measurable difference to overall problem gambling rates anywhere in the world, legal, illegal, widely advertised or hidden on the dark net Internet Gambling has made no measurable difference to PG rates at all.
Now a survey that shows blacks and hispanics like smart pones does not alter this basic fact, nor make them especially vulnerable. Using a reputable bit of research from essentially pre Internet gambling data and then conflating that with a bit of non gambling market research on smart phone take up is just barking.
Edit: forgot to mention - the reason he says lottery is more used by the poor is that this is the only form of gambling which is true (In UK live bingo and scratchcards too) the rest is lower participation vy the poor and higher for the top income group. Indeed Internet gambling in the UK is skewed well towards the better off and more educated participating more.
Last edited by Richas; 09-13-2014 at 10:48 AM.
Reason: forgot
