MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Commentary on Dixon <i>et al</i>. (2010): Unscrambling the egg

2010· letter· en· W1709194813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Livingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueIncentiveValue (mathematics)Computer scienceLine (geometry)BusinessMarketingAdvertisingEconomicsMicroeconomicsMathematicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dixon and colleagues demonstrate compelling evidence of the important role played by the inherent structural characteristics of electronic gambling machines (EGMs) in achieving key design goals, notably maximum revenue per customer and maximum time on device [1–3]. The capacity of contemporary EGMs for multi-line play, appears to be an effective strategy to increase average wagers, and to increase net revenue for EGM operators [4]. This aspect of EGM design permits the collation of multiple events into a single wager – in the case of a 15 line bet, it is as though 15 successive wagers were collapsed into a single event. EGMs commonly permit wagers on as many as 50 lines, and patented reel betting technology now permits wagers to be placed on up to 1,024 ‘ways’ of winning on a single spin of the virtual reels of an EGM. The effect of these innovations is to increase the price of play by many times the minimum credit value of the specific game. A one cent credit value game played at 50 lines will cost 50 cents per bet, which repeated at intervals of two to three seconds can quickly become an expensive pastime. The frequent occurrence of what appear to be ‘near misses’ on lines not being wagered on provides an incentive for most experienced EGM users to bet on as many lines as possible – the so-called ‘maxi-min’ strategy (i.e., placing a minimum credit bet on all available lines) which seeks to cover all possible winning combinations [4,5]. Dixon and colleagues have elaborated this by careful analysis of the game mathematics presented in so-called ‘PAR’ sheets (probability accounting reports) presenting the theoretical probabilities for game outcomes. In most jurisdictions, these have hitherto been protected as commercially confidential documents. The structure of the Canadian gambling industry (where gambling corporations are state-owned) has allowed the authors to gain access to these data using freedom of information legislation. By undertaking this analysis, the authors have begun the process of analysing systematically the structural characteristics of electronic gaming machine (EGM) games. The importance of this work should not be underestimated. Up to this point, most attempts to examine the effect of EGM structural characteristics have been relatively piecemeal, mainly utilizing self-reports of user perceptions, observations of EGM use, use of simulated games or measurement of arousal. In almost all existing research, however, actual game mathematics or machine data are absent [6–9]. Such studies have failed to link specific EGM design features convincingly to gambler behaviour. EGMs utilize intermittent reinforcement to encourage excessive and often harmful levels of use. In a sociological sense, EGMs appear to affect the agency of many of those who use them regularly, being productive of a specific subjectivity associated frequently with significant harm [10]. A recent report by the Australian Productivity Commission estimated that 40% of EGM revenue was derived from problem gamblers [i.e. those scoring 8 or more on the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI)] and a further 20% from those at moderate risk (CPGI score 3–7) [11]. Further careful analysis of EGM game mathematics, as Dixon et al. have demonstrated, has the potential to shed considerable light on the relationship between the core technology of EGM games and the production of harmful effects in EGM users. It is also likely to provide much important evidence for public health and other initiatives to reduce or minimize gambling-related harm, with positive consequences for more effective regulation of this common and highly harmful form of gambling, and for the development of improved approaches to treatment and prevention. The author received no funding in relation to this commentary. There are no connections between the author and alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical or gambling industries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207