LUTHER STRANGE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

501 WASHINGTON AVENUE 

MONTGOMERY, AL 36130

(334) 242-7300

WWW.AGO.ALABAMA.GOV

STATE OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 23, 2013

The National Indian Gaming Commission

1441 L Street NW, Suite 9100

Washington, DC 20005

Dear Commission Members: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment to the National Indian 

Gaming Commission concerning the Commission’s “proposed reinterpretation of 

an agency decision regarding the classification of server based electronic bingo 

system games that can be played utilizing only one touch of a button (‘one touch 

bingo’).” See 25 C.F.R. Part 502. On February 11, 2011, I urged you to use 

your comprehensive review of existing regulations to “make clear that Native 

American Indian tribes located in Alabama cannot engage in gambling activities 

that are patently illegal under Alabama law.” In April of 2012, I urged you to 

draw a clear distinction between technological aids that may be used with Class 

II bingo and Class III slot machines, which require a compact. I now urge you 

not to adopt the “proposed reinterpretation.”

Your proposal moves in the wrong direction. Your proposal would repeal 

the NIGC’s only good-faith attempt in the last decade to meaningfully 

distinguish between technological aids and slot machines. Instead of clarifying 

this important area of the law, it would further blur the line between the kinds 

of gambling that states have the right to control and the kinds they do not. This 

proposal is regrettable. It is also arbitrary and capricious. If adopted, the 

proposal would violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) and your 

congressional mandate. Accordingly, I urge you to abandon this proposal and to 

replace it with a proposal to strengthen and further demarcate the line between 

Class II and Class III gambling.

As you know, slot machines cannot be operated by a Native American 

Indian tribe on land located in a state like Alabama that has not agreed to a 

compact with that tribe. When Congress enacted the IGRA it envisioned two 

distinct types of gaming – the traditional game of bingo on the one hand and 

casino halls filled with slot machines on the other. That is why IGRA 
The National Indian Gaming Commission

August 23, 2013

Page 2 

distinguishes between “technological aids” that may be used with Class II games 

like bingo, which can be operated without a compact, and Class III games such 

as “slot machines,” which cannot be operated without a compact. In fact, IGRA 

expressly provides in no uncertain terms that “‘class II gaming’ does not include

. . . electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot 

machines of any kind.” 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(b)(2) (emphasis added).

After IGRA was enacted, slot machine manufacturers and tribes went to 

great lengths to conflate Class III slot machines with bona fide “technological 

aids” used to play the traditional game of Class II bingo. By 2006, this 

Commission was rightly “concerned that the industry is dangerously close to

obscuring the line between Class II and III” altogether. See Proposed Rule, 25 

CFR Part 502 and 546, Classification Standards, Class II Gaming, Bingo, Lotto, 

et al., 71 Fed. Reg. 30238 (May 25, 2006). For that reason, the Commission 

proposed a package of reforms designed to enforce the statutory distinction 

between Class II and Class III games. Id. For that reason, as well, the former 

NIGC Commissioner issued a series of rulings that held that slot-machine 

terminals were not “technological aids” to play “bingo” if players were not at 

least required to press a button three times. See Disapproval Letter from 

Commissioner Philip Hogen to Mayor Karl S. Cook at 7 (June 4, 2008). 

Unfortunately, the Commission abandoned any effort to enforce the statutory 

line between “technological aids” and “facsimiles” of games of chance through a 

meaningful regulation and, since that time, has simply “assume[d] that such a 

line already exists.” Withdrawal of Classification Standards for Bingo, Lotto, 

Other Games Similar to Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant Bingo as Class II Gaming 

When Played Through an Electronic Medium Using ‘‘Electronic, Computer, or 

Other Technologic Aids,” 73 Fed. Reg. 60523 (Oct. 10, 2008). 

Although the Commission promised to address “classification issues 

through a combination of training, technical assistance, and enforcement 

actions,” it has completely failed to do so. See 73 Fed. Reg. 60490, 60491 (Oct. 

10 2008). Instead of enforcing the law, the Commission has allowed regulated 

entities to run roughshod over its interpretation of Class II gaming. As far as I 

can ascertain, the Commission has done absolutely nothing to ensure compliance 

with its longstanding interpretation that “one touch” gambling devices are 

illegal for tribes to operate without a compact. After reviewing all of the 

Commission’s enforcement actions since 2006 on the Commission’s website, my 

office has not uncovered a single action related to the difference between Class 

II and Class III games or the use of “technological aids.” 

In light of this background, this new proposal is especially troubling. 

Instead of enforcing its existing interpretation of Class II bingo, the 

Commission’s new proposal is to overturn that interpretation and effectively 

eliminate any difference between “technological aids” and “slot machines.” I 
The National Indian Gaming Commission

August 23, 2013

Page 3 

fully agree with the comment letter filed by Attorney General Bill Schuette of 

Michigan, and I have four additional comments on this deeply misguided 

proposal. 

First, these “one touch electronic bingo machines” are not, in the words of 

the Senate Report, “readily distinguishable from . . . electronic facsimiles in 

which a single participant plays a game with or against a machine.” S. Rep. No. 

100-446 at p. A-9. There is no difference from a player’s perspective between 

playing an acknowledged slot machine and a one-touch “electronic bingo” 

machine. At the touch of a single button, both gambling devices simply tell the 

player whether he or she has won a prize through spinning reels, sound effects,

and blinking lights. Because this kind of equipment automatically, electronically 

automates the play of the game and the players’ participation in the game, the 

electronic equipment cannot be characterized as merely an aid. Player attention, 

discretion, and interactions have been automated by the equipment. As detailed 

in my amended complaint in State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority et al., 

2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC (M.D. Ala), tribal gambling facilities in Alabama are 

currently operating one-touch “electronic bingo” games that are openly 

marketed as acknowledged slot machines in other jurisdictions like Las Vegas 

and Atlantic City. See Amended Complaint (attached as Exhibit 1). There is no 

“readily distinguishable” difference between the two types of gambling 

machines.

By further conflating “technological aids” with acknowledged slot 

machines, the Commission will only add to the public’s and regulated 

community’s confusion about what is legal and what is not. Most states that 

allow the game of bingo define it much more narrowly than the Commission 

proposes to do. See, e.g., Barber v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., 42 

So. 3d 65 (Ala. 2009); Citation Bingo, Ltd. v. Otten, 910 P.2d 281, 283, 286–88 

(N.M. 1995); FLA. STAT. § 849.0931(1)(a); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 79-4701(f)(4); 

DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 28, § 1102(1). Similarly, the common definition of a slot 

machine—including the definition in the federal Johnson Act—encompasses 

devices like so-called “one-touch electronic bingo” machines. See, e.g., Ala. 

Code 13A-12-20(10)(defining slot machine as “[a] gambling device that, as a 

result of the insertion of a coin or other object, operates, either completely

automatically or with the aid of some physical act by the player, in such a 

manner that, depending upon elements of chance, it may eject something of 

value.”); MDS Investments, L.L.C. v. State, 65 P.3d 197, 203 (Idaho 2003)

(“Considering the technological changes, a slot machine is a gambling device 

which, upon payment by a player of required consideration in any form, may be 

played or operated, and which, upon being played or operated, may, solely by 

chance, deliver or entitle the player to receive something of value, with the 

outcome being shown by spinning reels or by a video or other representation of 

reels.”). Alabama citizens are understandably confused when Indian tribes are 
The National Indian Gaming Commission

August 23, 2013

Page 4 

allowed to call their Class III slot machines “bingo,” but gambling promoters 

within the state’s jurisdiction cannot use the same trick. The solution to this 

confusion is not for the NIGC to officially repudiate the difference between 

Class II and Class III; the solution is for the Commission to strictly enforce 

federal law. 

Second, the Commission’s proposal exceeds the Commission’s authority 

under IGRA because it authorizes a “kind” of slot machine in states that do not 

have compacts. See 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(b)(2). Your proposed reinterpretation 

relies primarily on a series of court decisions about MegaMania bingo. See 

United States v. 162 MegaMania Gambling Devices, 231 F.3d 713 (10th cir. 

2000); United States v. 103 Gambling Devices, 223 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Those cases were wrongly decided. But, even had they been properly decided, 

they concerned devices very different from the types of “one-touch” bingo that 

your proposed reinterpretation would authorize. In those cases, the Tenth and 

Ninth Circuits considered electronic, computerized player stations that 

connected a minimum of 12 players and displayed bingo cards and bingo balls. 

Each game on those stations was a group activity that took from two to three 

minutes to play. And those courts were careful to note that their conclusions 

were limited to the specific facts of those cases. See MegaMania, 231 F.3d at 

725. 

Third, by authorizing tribes to use slot-machine-style machines without a 

compact, the Commission will create more addicted gamblers and impose 

substantial costs on the states. Slot machines and their identical twin “onetouch electronic bingo machines” are specifically designed to use sounds and 

lights to exploit players and increase their gambling. See Dixon MJ et al, The 

Impact of Sound in Modern Multiline Video Slot Machine Play, JOURNAL OF 

GAMBLING STUDIES (2013); Dixon MJ et al., Losses disguised as wins in modern 

multi-line video slot machines, ADDICTION (2010) (attached jointly as Exhibit 

2). Unlike slow-paced traditional bingo games or even the kinds of games 

addressed in the MegaMania bingo decisions, slot machines use these gimmicks 

to trick players into believing that they have won more frequently and more 

money than they actually have. Id. Slot machines also speed up gambling 

activity so that gamblers can play many rounds in a quick succession. 

Accordingly, it should come as no surprise to you that recent studies show that 

up to 41% of slot-machine losses, and between 25% and 50% of casino revenue, 

comes from problem or addicted gamblers. See Alexandra Berzon & Mark 

Maremont, Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts, WALL 

STREET JOURNAL at A1 (August 3, 2013) (attached as Exhibit 3). These kinds of 

addicted gamblers (and the other ill effects of slot-machine gambling, such as 

organized crime) impose substantial costs on the community surrounding a slotmachine casino. See, e.g., John Warren Kindt, The Costs of Addicted Gamblers: 

Should the States Initiate Mega-Lawsuits Similar to the Tobacco Cases?, 22 
The National Indian Gaming Commission

August 23, 2013

Page 5 

MANAGERIAL & DECISION ECON. 17 (2001) (attached as Exhibit 4). By 

authorizing tribes to conduct slot-machine-style gambling without the need for a 

compact, you will have eliminated any means by which states can recoup the 

serious societal costs of such gambling. You will also have made it impossible 

for the people of the states to determine whether they want to allow this kind of 

gambling for themselves.

Finally, the Commission’s decision appears driven by unusually perverse 

financial and regulatory incentives. Because the Commission is funded by the 

aggregate amount of Class II gambling, growth in Class II gambling necessarily 

increases the Commission’s funding. See 25 U.S.C. § 2717a. Moreover, unlike 

the case with Class III gambling, the Commission does not share regulatory 

authority over Class II gambling with the states. Accordingly, by construing 

“technological aid” to allow for gambling devices materially identical to 

acknowledged slot machines, the Commission is merely aggregating additional 

regulatory authority to itself in contravention of the role of the states in 

regulating this kind of gambling activity. This will have a very real and 

negative effect on state sovereignty: tribes will no longer need a state’s 

permission to fund and build multi-story slot-machine casinos. In contravention 

of Congress’s intent, the Commission, not the states, will have the power to 

make those decisions.

In conclusion, I agree with the Commission that the status quo is 

unacceptable. But the answer is not to ignore Congressional mandates. The 

answer is for the Commission to enforce the bright line between Class II and 

Class III gambling that already exists in federal law. 

If the Commission needs any further comment or information related to 

this matter, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Respectfully submitted,

 

LUTHER STRANGE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

LS/alb

Encl.
Exhibit 

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALBAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

STATE OF ALABAMA ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

PCI GAMING AUTHORITY, ) 

BUFORD ROLIN, STEPHANIE BRYAN, ) Civil Action No. 

ROBERT MCGHEE, DAVID GEHMAN, ) 2:13-CV-00178-WKW-WC 

ARTHUR MOTHERSHED, ) 

SANDY HOLLINGER, GARVIS SELLS, ) 

EDDIE TULLIS, KEITH MARTIN, ) 

BRIDGET WASDIN, ) 

MATTHEW MARTIN, BILLY SMITH, ) 

TIM MANNING, )

 ) 

 ) 

Defendants. )

 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW, the State of Alabama, by and through Attorney General Luther Strange 

via the undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for declaratory and 

injunctive relief to abate a public nuisance of unlawful gambling, pursuant to Ala. Code § 6-5-

120 based on the following : 

JURISDICTION 

1. Defendants removed this case on the grounds that this Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties. 

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 10
2

3. Defendants have no tribal or sovereign immunity that would bar the declaratory 

and injunctive relief requested in this Complaint. As explained in more detail below, by openly 

and notoriously operating their casinos in violation of state law, Defendants have exceeded any 

purported authority they may have to conduct gambling under state or federal law. 

PARTIES 

4. Plaintiff is the State of Alabama by and through Attorney General Luther Strange, 

who has standing to bring this action on behalf of the State. See Ala. Code § 36-15-12. 

5. Defendant PCI Gaming Authority is a commercial enterprise owned and operated 

by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (“PBCI”). 

6. Defendants Buford Rolin, Stephanie Bryan, Robert McGhee, David Gehman, 

Arthur Mothershed, Keith Martin, Sandy Hollinger, Garvin Sells, and Eddie Tullis are members 

of the PBCI Tribal Council and officials of PBCI sued in their official capacity. 

7. Defendants Keith Martin, Bridget Wasdin, Matthew Martin, Billy Smith and Tim 

Manning are members of the PCI Gaming Authority and tribal officials sued in their official 

capacity.

VENUE 

8. Venue is appropriate in this Court. This action was filed in state court in Elmore 

County, Alabama, and removed to this Court by Defendants. Elmore County is within the 

Middle District of Alabama. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

9. Defendants operate, administer, and control three casinos on purported Indian 

lands in Alabama: the Creek Casino in Wetumpka, the Wind Creek Casino in Atmore, and the 

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2 of 10
3

Creek Casino in Montgomery. At each of these casinos, Defendants operate hundreds of slot 

machines and other gambling devices in open, continuous, and notorious use.

10. Gambling is generally illegal in Alabama, and slot machines are particularly so. 

The State’s general prohibition on gambling is so fundamental that the People enshrined it in the 

Constitution. See ALA. CONST. art. IV, §65. The Legislature has specifically criminalized 

possession of slot machines and other gambling devices. ALA. CODE §13A-12-27. Nevertheless, 

because of the immense profits associated with organized gambling, the industry frequently has 

tried to “evade[]” these prohibitions, as the Alabama Supreme Court put it in Barber v. Jefferson 

Cnty. Racing Ass’n, 960 So. 2d 599 (Ala. 2006), by asserting that “loophole[s]” in Alabama law 

were much larger than they in fact were. Id. at 614. For example, in 2006, the Alabama Supreme 

Court rejected the industry’s attempt to pass off what were really slot machines as machines that 

were playing a legal “sweepstakes.” Id. at 603-15. The Alabama Supreme Court held that 

substance is more important than legal technicality; accordingly, gambling devices are illegal if 

they “look like, sound like, and attract the same class of customers as conventional slot 

machines.” Id. at 616. See also Ex parte State, No. 1120498, __ So. 3d ___, 2013 WL 765747 

(Ala. Mar. 1, 2013); Barber v. Cornerstone Comm. Outreach, 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala. 2009); State ex 

rel. Tyson v. Ted’s Game Enterprises, 893 So. 2d 376, 380 (Ala. 2004). 

11. Gambling on “Indian Lands” is governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(“IGRA”). By enacting IGRA, Congress intended that Indian tribes be able to conduct gambling 

only “within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such 

gaming activity.” 25 U.S.C. § 1701(5). Accordingly, IGRA expressly provides that, “for 

purposes of Federal law, all State laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of 

gambling, including but not limited to criminal sanctions applicable thereto, shall apply in Indian 

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 3 of 10
4

country in the same manner and to the same extent as such laws apply elsewhere in the State.” 18 

U.S.C. § 1166(a). 

12. IGRA also expressly distinguishes between “technological aids” that may be used 

with class II games like bingo without a State’s consent, and class III games such as “slot 

machines,” which cannot be operated without a State’s consent. IGRA expressly provides that 

“‘class II gaming’ does not include . . . electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of 

chance or slot machines of any kind.” 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(b)(2) (emphasis added). Nonetheless, 

slot machine manufacturers and Indian tribes have gone to great lengths to conflate Class III slot 

machines with “technological aids” used to play the game of bingo. By 2006, the National 

Indian Gaming Commission admitted “that the industry is dangerously close to obscuring the 

line between Class II and III” altogether. See Proposed Rule, 25 CFR Part 502 and 546, 

Classification Standards, Class II Gaming, Bingo, Lotto, et al., 71 Fed. Reg. 30238 (May 25, 

2006). 

13. Defendants’ gambling devices play like acknowledged slot machines and

facsimiles of games of chance. Someone who wants to play one of Defendants’ gambling 

devices can insert money directly into the face of the machine or load money onto a swipe card 

that the player inserts into the machine. The player then presses a button to bet a certain amount 

of money. Once the bet is in, the player presses a button or pulls a slot-machine arm or handle to 

start the spinning of slot reels that appear on the gambling devices. For some machines, the slot 

reels are digital; for others, the slot reels are mechanical. Approximately six seconds later, the 

machine displays the game’s result. If the customer wins, then his or her credits go up; if not, the 

credits go down. The player can then either play again or cash out to receive credit for any 

money he or she has remaining. 

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 4 of 10
5

14. All it takes to operate some of the gambling devices at Defendants’ casinos is a 

single touch of a button or pull of a handle. With a single touch or pull, the machines both 

initiate a game and bring that game to conclusion. On information and belief, other of 

Defendants’ gambling devices require two actions by the player: one touch or pull to initiate the 

spinning slot reels and a second touch or pull to stop the spinning slot reels. 

15. Defendants’ devices display a small “bingo card” to the side, below, or above the 

slot reels. On most of the machines, the “bingo” display is 1.5 inches by 1.5 inches. The 

predominant display on all Defendants’ gambling devices is a large, digital or mechanical 

representation of “reels” commonly seen on acknowledged slot machines. 

16. Defendants’ gambling devices replicate a game of chance in an electronic format. 

There is no interaction between players. There is no competition to be the first person who 

covers a bingo card. No player must call out “bingo.” There is no holder of a bingo card who 

covers randomly drawn numbers on the card. No player can “sleep a bingo” or forfeit a prize 

based on his or her failure to recognize a predetermined winning pattern. The player does not 

need to pay attention, listen to alphanumeric designations drawn one-by-one, or match them up 

to a bingo card. Instead, the player presses a single button, watches slot-machine reels spin, and 

is told whether he or she has won by the gambling device. 

17. Some of Defendants’ gambling devices are operated as acknowledged slot 

machines in other jurisdictions. For example, on information and belief, “Red Hot Fusion,” 

“Quick Hit,” “Hot Shot Blazing 7s,” and “Wheel of Fortune” are openly, notoriously, and 

continuously played at Defendants’ casinos. These games are marketed as both “bingo” and 

acknowledged slot machines. Publicly available marketing materials for “Red Hot Fusion,” 

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 5 of 10
6

“Quick Hit,” “Hot Shot Blazing 7s,” and “Wheel of Fortune” are attached as Exhibit A to this 

Amended Complaint. 

18. Defendants’ gambling devices play like, look like, sound like, and attract the 

same class of customers as acknowledged slot machines. Attached as Exhibit B to this Amended 

Complaint are publicly available photographs of some of the gambling devices in open, 

continuous, and notorious use in Defendants’ casinos. 

COUNT I – PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER STATE LAW 

19. The State incorporates paragraphs 1 through 18 as if fully stated in Count I. 

20. Devices being used at Defendants’ casinos do not play the game “commonly 

known as bingo” as defined by Alabama law. See Barber v. Cornerstone Comm. Outreach, 42 

So. 3d 65 (Ala. 2009). 

21. Devices being used at Defendants’ casinos are prohibited gambling devices, as 

defined in Alabama Code § 13A-12-20(5). They are machines or equipment used in the playing 

phases of gambling activity between persons or machines. Id.

22. Devices being used at Defendants’ casinos are slot machines or readily 

convertible to slot machines, as defined in Alabama Code § 13A-12-20(10). As a result of the 

insertion of an object, Defendants’ devices operate with the aid of a physical act by the player to 

eject something of value based on the element of chance. 

23. Defendants do not have legal authority to operate, advance, or profit from 

unlawful gambling activity in violation of Article IV, Section 65 of the Alabama Constitution 

(1901) and Ala. Code § 13A-12-20 et seq. 

24. Defendants have an obligation to comply with Alabama’s gambling laws for at 

least two reasons. First, federal law does not authorize Defendants to engage in “class III” 

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 6 of 10
7

gambling or otherwise use “electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or 

slot machines of any kind.” 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(B) (emphasis added). Instead, as to this kind of 

gambling, “for purposes of Federal law, all State laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or 

prohibition of gambling, including but not limited to criminal sanctions applicable thereto, shall 

apply in Indian country in the same manner and to the same extent as such laws apply elsewhere 

in the State.” 18 U.S.C. § 1166(a) & (c). The term “‘all State laws’ includes both state statutory 

and case law.” United States v. Santee Sioux Tribe, 135 F.3d 558, 565 (8th Cir. 1998). 

25. Second, on information and belief, Defendants’ casinos are not located on 

properly recognized “Indian Lands” such that they would even be governed by IGRA. The 

Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (“IRA”) allows the Interior Department’s Bureau of Indian 

Affairs to take land into trust for Native Americans. But the U.S. Supreme Court in Carcieri v. 

Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), has ruled that the Secretary of Interior has never been authorized 

to take land into trust for Indian tribes that were not “under federal jurisdiction” and recognized 

prior to 1934. Upon information and belief, PBCI was not under federal jurisdiction and 

recognized prior to 1934. 

26. The continued operation of slot machines and unlawful gambling devices by 

Defendants is a public nuisance. See Ala. Code § 6-5-120 et seq.; Restatement (Second) of Torts 

§ 821B; Try-Me Bottling Company, et al v. State of Alabama, 178 So.231 (Ala. 1938). 

27. The continued operation of slot machines and unlawful gambling devices by 

Defendants works hurt, inconvenience, or damage to the public interest. 

28. The public policy of Alabama is emphatically against lotteries or any scheme in 

the nature of a lottery. 

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 7 of 10
8

29. The State has an interest in the welfare of the people within her domain and, of 

consequence, in enforcement of the State’s declared public policy against lotteries or gift 

schemes. 

30. Defendants’ operation of lotteries and their use of slot machines and unlawful 

gambling devices are enjoinable in suit by the State by virtue of this Court’s equity jurisdiction 

to abate a public nuisance. See Try-Me Bottling Company, et al v. State of Alabama, 178 So. 231 

(Ala. 1938). 

COUNT II – PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER FEDERAL LAW 

31. The State incorporates paragraphs 1 through 30 as if fully stated in Count II.

32. Defendants’ activities constitute a public nuisance under Alabama law. 

33. Alabama statutes and judicial precedents, such as Article IV, Section 65 of the 

Alabama Constitution (1901), Ala. Code § 13A-12-20 et seq, and Try-Me Bottling Company, et 

al v. State of Alabama, 178 So. 231 (Ala. 1938), are “State laws pertaining to the licensing, 

regulation, or prohibition of gambling.” 18 U.S.C. § 1166(a). 

34. Defendants are engaged in “class III” gambling as defined by the Indian 

Regulatory Gaming Act. 

35. Defendants have no authority to conduct “class III” gambling or use “electronic or 

electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind.” 25 U.S.C. § 

2703(7)(B) (emphasis added). 

36. Defendants’ “class III” gambling activities are enjoinable under federal law 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1166(a) & (c). 

37. The State of Alabama, through its Attorney General, is a proper party to file an 

action to enjoin the public nuisance of unlawful gambling on Indian lands. 

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 8 of 10
9

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Alabama respectfully requests 

this Honorable Court enter an Order 

1) declaring that the gambling activities being conducted by or through the Defendants 

is a public nuisance; 

2) permanently enjoining such unlawful gambling activities; and 

3) ordering such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LUTHER STRANGE (STR003)

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

/s/ Andrew L. Brasher 

Andrew L. Brasher (BRA143) 

Deputy Solicitor General 

OF COUNSEL: 

Andrew L. Brasher (BRA143) 

Deputy Solicitor General 

Henry T. Reagan II (REA021) 

Deputy Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General 

501 Washington Avenue 

Post Office Box 300152 

Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 

(334) 242-7300 

(334) 242-4890 – FAX

abrasher@ago.state.al.us

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 9 of 10
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using 

the CM/ECF system and service will be perfected upon the following counsel of record on this 

day the 11th of April, 2013: 

Robin G. Laurie 

rlaurie@balch.com 

Kelly F. Pate 

kpate@balch.com 

Balch & Bingham LLP 

Post Office Box 78 

Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 

Telephone: (334) 834-6500 

Facsimile: (334) 269-3115 

Keith M. Harper 

kharper@kilpatricktownsend.com 

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 

607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900 

Washington, D.C. 20005-2018 

Telephone: (202) 508-5844 

Facsimile: (202) 508-5858 

Mark H. Reeves 

mreeves@kilpatricktownsend.com 

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 

699 Broad Street, Suite 1400 

Augusta, GA 30901-1453 

Telephone: (706) 823-4206 

Facsimile: (706) 828-4488 

/s/ Andrew L. Brasher 

 OF COUNSEL

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/13 Page 10 of 10
Exhibit A

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 11
Red Hot Fusion®

 Sizzling 7® Bingo

BENEFITS AND FEATURES

•	Created for players who enjoy Multi-Level Progressives

and bonus wheel action

•	Anticipation builds as players collect points during the

Free Games bonus towards additional active wheel

pointers for the Meltdown bonus spin

•	Players can win up to two of the five progressive levels

with one wheel spin

•	Thrilling fireballs shoot from the base game to the top

box wheel during the Free Games bonus

•	Plays on the Red Hot Fusion Multi-Level Progressives

series of games

© 2012 IGT. All rights reserved.

All trademarks are owned and/or registered by IGT and/or its licensors in the US and/or other countries.

Artwork, descriptions, game play, photographs, videos, and other product details depicted are subject to change. C2_RedHotFusionSizzling7_0312

IGT Las Vegas

Corporate Global

Headquarters 

6355 South Buffalo Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89113-2133

702-669-7777

Game outcome is determined by bingo game play only.

Reel display and bonus game play have no effect on

game outcome.

For more information on specific game configurations

available in your jurisdiction, contact your IGT Account

Manager, or visit www.IGT.com.

GAME DETAILS

Reel Configuration 5 Reel

Payline Configuration 25 Paylines

Payback % 80% - 94%

Maximum Bet 125 Credits

Top Award Progressive

Base Game Hit Frequency with

Maximum Paylines Played* 54%*

Bonus Hit Frequency

(High/Medium/Low) Medium

Volatility

(High/Medium/Low) Medium

Multi-Denomination Yes

*Approximation only based on 90% payback

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2 of 11
Red Hot FusionTM

Multi-Level Progressives

Turn up the heat with Red Hot FusionTM

Multi-Level Progressives.

Building on the success of Red Hot Jackpots® Multi-Level Progressives (MLP), Red Hot 

FusionTM MLP intensifies the gaming experience with MLD® technology, five progressive 

levels and a virtual bonus wheel your lower-denomination players will love. 

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 3 of 11
Highlights

• Created for lower-denomination players who 

enjoy multi-level progressives and bonus 

wheel action

• Anticipation builds as players collect points 

during Free Games bonus towards additional 

active pointers for the virtual wheel and 

Meltdown bonus spin 

• Players can win credits and up to two of five 

progressive amounts during the virtual wheel 

spin

• Top progressive awarded during base or 

bonus game play with five top award symbols 

lined up

• Keep players entertained with fun animation 

features such as fireballs traveling from the 

base game to the wheel in the top box during 

the Free Games bonus

• Max bet must be played to be eligible for 

progressive values 

Features

• 5 reels, 25 paylines, 125-credit maximum bet 

• Five progressive levels

Base Games Available at Release 

• Double Bursting 7sTM

• Double Sizzling 7s®

• Sizzling 7s®

• Spin-FernoTM

adds new dimension to MLP experience. 

Virtual Wheel

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 4 of 11
Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn IGT Blog

Global Links: About IGT Careers Investor Relations News Room

© 2013 IGT. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

IGT company, product and/or service names referenced are either

trademarks or registered trademarks of IGT or its licensors in the U.S.

and/or other countries. For details visit www.IGT.com/Trademarks.

Responsible Gaming

Wager Wisely.

If you think you might have a gambling problem, call for help.

Problem Gambling Helpline, +1-800-522-4700.

Must be of legal age to gamble.

GAMES CABINETS SYSTEMS INTERACTIVE SOCIAL GAMING SUPPORT

Search IGT.com

Home > Games > Wheel of Fortune® Bingo - Big MoneyTM Multi-Level Progressives

Multi-Level Progressive

Wide-Area Progressive

Stand-Alone

Bonusing Concepts

Video Reel

Spinning Reel

Video Poker

Multi-Game (Game King)

Game Families

Game Hardware Series

Bingo (Class II)

CDS

Electronic Table

Virtual Racing

Illinois Video Gaming

Online & Mobile (Interactive)

MegaJackpots

Slots

Table Games

Fixed Odds

Video Poker

Bingo & Keno

Slots

Table Games

Video Poker

Land-Based Games

Premium (MegaJackpots)

Core

Central System

Multi-Player

Other Gaming

Online & Mobile Games

Online

Mobile

Overview

Image Gallery

Login

WHEEL OF FORTUNE® BINGO - BIG MONEYTM MULTILEVEL PROGRESSIVES

AVP-Bingo: 5-Reel, 30-Line, 400-Credit +20 Side Bet

GAME MATRIX

Login to view secured content.

GAME MATRIX PROGRAMS MARKETING KIT

| | | |

 Global Welcome, Guest Create an Account Login

Wheel of Fortune® Bingo - Big MoneyTM Multi-Level Progressives: AVP-Bingo 5R30L4... Page 1 of 2

http://www.igt.com/us-en/games/game-page.aspx?type_id=8627&showtab=1 4/10/2013

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 5 of 11
Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn IGT Blog

Global Links: About IGT Careers Investor Relations News Room

© 2013 IGT. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

IGT company, product and/or service names referenced are either

trademarks or registered trademarks of IGT or its licensors in the U.S.

and/or other countries. For details visit www.IGT.com/Trademarks.

Responsible Gaming

Wager Wisely.

If you think you might have a gambling problem, call for help.

Problem Gambling Helpline, +1-800-522-4700.

Must be of legal age to gamble.

GAMES CABINETS SYSTEMS INTERACTIVE SOCIAL GAMING SUPPORT

Search IGT.com

Home > Games > Wheel of Fortune® Bingo - Big MoneyTM Multi-Level Progressives

Multi-Level Progressive

Wide-Area Progressive

Stand-Alone

Bonusing Concepts

Video Reel

Spinning Reel

Video Poker

Multi-Game (Game King)

Game Families

Game Hardware Series

Bingo (Class II)

CDS

Electronic Table

Virtual Racing

Illinois Video Gaming

Online & Mobile (Interactive)

MegaJackpots

Slots

Table Games

Fixed Odds

Video Poker

Bingo & Keno

Slots

Table Games

Video Poker

Land-Based Games

Premium (MegaJackpots)

Core

Central System

Multi-Player

Other Gaming

Online & Mobile Games

Online

Mobile

• Appeals to players with a strong brand, dynamic game play, and vibrant graphics

• The Wheel of Fortune® Big MoneyTM bonus is initiated with bonus symbols on reels 2, 3 and

4, and can be triggered on a tumble

- Players pick a symbol that may award a wheel spin and an extra wheel pointer

- With max bet, players can earn a bonus wheel spin with eight wheel pointers

• The first Wheel of Fortune® game to feature Tumbling Reels®, where winning symbol

combinations disappear and new symbols fall into place for repeated wins

• Wheel of Fortune® is the original wheel game with high player appeal

Game outcome is determined by bingo game play only. Reel display and bonus game play have no

effect on game outcome.

Overview

Image Gallery

Login

WHEEL OF FORTUNE® BINGO - BIG MONEYTM MULTILEVEL PROGRESSIVES

AVP-Bingo: 5-Reel, 30-Line, 400-Credit +20 Side Bet

GAME MATRIX

Login to view secured content.

GAME MATRIX PROGRAMS MARKETING KIT

| | | |

 Global Welcome, Guest Create an Account Login

Wheel of Fortune® Bingo - Big MoneyTM Multi-Level Progressives: AVP-Bingo 5R30L4... Page 1 of 2

http://www.igt.com/us-en/games/game-page.aspx?type_id=8627&showtab=1 4/10/2013

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 6 of 11
Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn IGT Blog

Global Links: About IGT Careers Investor Relations News Room

© 2013 IGT. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

IGT company, product and/or service names referenced are either

trademarks or registered trademarks of IGT or its licensors in the U.S.

and/or other countries. For details visit www.IGT.com/Trademarks.

Responsible Gaming

Wager Wisely.

If you think you might have a gambling problem, call for help.

Problem Gambling Helpline, +1-800-522-4700.

Must be of legal age to gamble.

GAMES CABINETS SYSTEMS INTERACTIVE SOCIAL GAMING SUPPORT

Search IGT.com

Home > Games > Wheel of Fortune® Video Reel - Big MoneyTM

Multi-Level Progressive

Wide-Area Progressive

Stand-Alone

Bonusing Concepts

Video Reel

Spinning Reel

Video Poker

Multi-Game (Game King)

Game Families

Game Hardware Series

Bingo (Class II)

CDS

Electronic Table

Virtual Racing

Illinois Video Gaming

Online & Mobile (Interactive)

MegaJackpots

Slots

Table Games

Fixed Odds

Video Poker

Bingo & Keno

Slots

Table Games

Video Poker

Land-Based Games

Premium (MegaJackpots)

Core

Central System

Multi-Player

Other Gaming

Online & Mobile Games

Online

Mobile

Wheel of Fortune® Big MoneyTM Multi-Level Progressives bring a completely new Wheel of

Fortune® experience to players. Players familiar with DaVinci Diamonds® Video Slots will love this

game.The Tumbling Reels® action lets players win again and again. As symbols that are part of

winning combinations disappear, new symbols drop in. Bonus symbols can tumble in to initiate the

bonus, too.

The latest in the Wheel of Fortune® family combines the excitement of multi-level progressives with

the chance to spin the wheel that can lead to progressive wins, too. Players are guaranteed at least

one progressive award win when eight pointers are activated. High bonus frequency is designed to

keep players engaged.

Overview

Also available as: Select Game ఔ

Login

WHEEL OF FORTUNE® VIDEO REEL - BIG MONEYTM

Wheel of Fortune® Special EditionTM > Wheel of Fortune

GAME MATRIX

Login to view secured content.

GAME MATRIX PROGRAMS MARKETING KIT

| | | |

 Global Welcome, Guest Create an Account Login

Wheel of Fortune® Video Reel - Big MoneyTM: AVP 5R30L400C+20 | IGT Games (Unit... Page 1 of 2

http://www.igt.com/us-en/games/game-page.aspx?type_id=8224&showtab=1 4/10/2013

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 7 of 11
Login Home Company Information Contact Us Careers Investor Relations

Par Sheets - FRN/PRN ఔ

BYI-NYSE:$50.29 0.29 (+0.58%)

Video Slots

Stepper Slots

Premium Games

International

Class II Games

Washington State Games

Game Search

Advanced Game Search

Par Sheet Search

Customer Support

Manuals

Field Advisories

Hardware Specifications

Par Sheet

FRN/PRN

Cut Sheets

Artwork

Operators Instruction Manuals

Advisories

Hot Shot Progressive - Blazing

7s

Game Description

Class II 5 Reels, 20 Lines, 100/200 Credits Max

Bet

Available Denominations

1¢, 2¢, 3¢, 4¢, 5¢, 6¢, 7¢, 8¢, 9¢, 10¢, 25¢, 50¢,

$1, $2, $5

Progressive Options

Five Level Internal/ External

Bonus Features

Game In Game (GIG) Feature

Top Award

10,000 Credits x Total Max Bet

Sitemap Privacy Policy Contact Us © 2013 Bally Technologies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Games Systems Interactive Customer Center Player Center Events Newsroom

Contact Us

Share |

Bally Technologies - Hot Shot Progressive - Blazing 7s Page 1 of 1

http://ballytech.com/games/class2/video-slots/hot-shot-progressive-blazing-7s-1791.html 4/11/2013

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 8 of 11
Login Home Company Information Contact Us Careers Investor Relations

Par Sheets - FRN/PRN ఔ

BYI-NYSE:$50.26 0.26 (+0.52%)

Video Slots

Stepper Slots

Premium Games

International

Class II Games

Washington State Games

Game Search

Advanced Game Search

Par Sheet Search

Customer Support

Manuals

Field Advisories

Hardware Specifications Par Sheet

FRN/PRN

Cut Sheets

Artwork

Operators Instruction Manuals

Advisories

Hot Shot Progressive Blazing 7s

Game Description

5 Reels, 20 Lines, 1,000 Credit Max Bet

Available Denominations

1¢, 2¢, 3¢, 4¢, 5¢, 10¢, 25¢, 50¢

Progressive Options

Internal/External Progressive

Bonus Features

Game In Game (GIG) Bonus Feature

Top Award

10,000 Credits x Denomination x Total Bet

Overall Hit Frequency

79.66%

Sitemap Privacy Policy Contact Us © 2013 Bally Technologies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Games Systems Interactive Customer Center Player Center Events Newsroom

Contact Us

Share |

Bally Technologies - Hot Shot Progressive Blazing 7s Page 1 of 1

http://ballytech.com/games/class3/video-slots/hot-shot-progressive-blazing-7s-945.html 4/11/2013

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 9 of 11
Login Home Company Information Contact Us Careers Investor Relations

Par Sheets - FRN/PRN ఔ

BYI-NYSE:$50.30 0.30 (+0.60%)

Video Slots

Stepper Slots

Premium Games

International

Class II Games

Washington State Games

Game Search

Advanced Game Search

Par Sheet Search

Customer Support

Manuals

Field Advisories

Hardware Specifications

Par Sheet

FRN/PRN

Cut Sheets

Artwork

Operators Instruction Manuals

Advisories

Quick Hit - Triple Blazing 7s,

Black Gold Wild, Black & White

Sevens, Stars & Bars

Game Description

Class II 3 Reels, 5 Lines, 50 Credits

Available Denominations

5¢, 10¢, 25¢, 50¢, $1, $2, $5

Progressive Options

Five Level Internal/ External

Top Award

2,500 Credits x Total Bet

Sitemap Privacy Policy Contact Us © 2013 Bally Technologies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Games Systems Interactive Customer Center Player Center Events Newsroom

Contact Us

Share |

Bally Technologies - Quick Hit - Triple Blazing 7s, Black Gold Wild, Black & White Sev... Page 1 of 1

http://ballytech.com/games/class2/stepper-slots/quick-hit-triple-blazing-7s-black-gold-wild... 4/11/2013

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 10 of 11
Login Home Company Information Contact Us Careers Investor Relations

Par Sheets - FRN/PRN ఔ

BYI-NYSE:$50.31 0.31 (+0.62%)

Video Slots

Stepper Slots

Premium Games

International

Class II Games

Washington State Games

Game Search

Advanced Game Search

Par Sheet Search

Customer Support

Manuals

Field Advisories

Hardware Specifications Par Sheet

FRN/PRN

Cut Sheets

Artwork

Operators Instruction Manuals

Advisories

Quick Hit (3R) Black Gold Wild,

Black & White Sevens, Stars &

Bars, Triple Blazing 7s

Game Description

3 Reels, 9 Lines, 45 Credits Max Bet

Available Denominations

5¢, 10¢, 15¢, 20¢, 25¢, 50¢, $1, $2, $5, $10,

$25, $50, $100

Progressive Options

Five level Internal/External

Bonus Features

Free Games. Three Free Games appearing on or

within one position of the first payline triggers the Free Games Bonus feature.

Overall Hit Frequency

Black Gold Wild - 30.64%

Black & White Sevens - 30.71%

Stars & Bars - 39.54%

Triple Blazing 7s - 30.71%

Sitemap Privacy Policy Contact Us © 2013 Bally Technologies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Games Systems Interactive Customer Center Player Center Events Newsroom

Contact Us

Share |

Bally Technologies - Quick Hit (3R) Black Gold Wild, Black & White Sevens, Stars & B... Page 1 of 1

http://ballytech.com/games/class3/stepper-slots/quick-hit-3r-black-gold-wild-blackwhite-se... 4/11/2013

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Click to buy NOW!

PDF-XChange

www.docu-track.com

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-1 Filed 04/11/13 Page 11 of 11
Exhibit B

Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 04/11/13 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:13-cv-00178-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 04/11/13 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 

2
ORIGINAL PAPER

The Impact of Sound in Modern Multiline Video Slot

Machine Play

Mike J. Dixon • Kevin A. Harrigan • Diane L. Santesso •

Candice Graydon • Jonathan A. Fugelsang • Karen Collins

The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Slot machine wins and losses have distinctive, measurable, physiological

effects on players. The contributing factors to these effects remain under-explored. We

believe that sound is one of these key contributing factors. Sound plays an important role in

reinforcement, and thus on arousal level and stress response of players. It is the use of

sound for positive reinforcement in particular that we believe influences the player. In the

current study, we investigate the role that sound plays in psychophysical responses to slot

machine play. A total of 96 gamblers played a slot machine simulator with and without

sound being paired with reinforcement. Skin conductance responses and heart rate, as well

as subjective judgments about the gambling experience were examined. The results

showed that the sound influenced the arousal of participants both psychophysically and

psychologically. The sound also influenced players’ preferences, with the majority of

players preferring to play slot machines that were accompanied by winning sounds. The

sounds also caused players to significantly overestimate the number of times they won

while playing the slot machine.

Keywords Slot machines Sound Reinforcement Arousal Skin conductance 

Heart rate

Introduction

Sound has always been an integral component of slot machine play. Since the early 1900s,

slot machine winning combinations have been accompanied by a ringing bell; a design

characteristic that is still present in most machines today. Up until about the early 1990s,

sound changed little from the early days, on average featuring about fifteen sound effects;

whereas, today slot machines average about 400 sound effects (Rivlin 2004). Winning

M. J. Dixon (&) K. A. Harrigan D. L. Santesso C. Graydon J. A. Fugelsang K. Collins

Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada

e-mail: mjdixon@uwaterloo.ca

123

J Gambl Stud

DOI 10.1007/s10899-013-9391-8
sounds are particularly important to the popularity and attraction of the machines, and

losing sounds are rarely heard. Indeed, winning sounds are carefully constructed to be

heard over the ambient noise of the environment, in order to draw attention to the machines

and to raise the self-esteem of the player, who then becomes the centre of attention on the

floor (Griffiths and Parke 2005). Often, the winning music contains high-pitched, major

mode songs, which has a tendency to increase the perception of urgency (Haas and Edworthy 1996).

Casino ambience is an important contributor to gambling behaviour (Griffiths and Parke

2005; Dixon et al. 2007; Marmurek et al. 2007; Noseworthy and Finlay 2009; Spenwyn

et al. 2010). The flashing lights, the visual design of the space, and in particular the use of

loud sounds serves to create feelings of excitement that distract the player by increasing

cognitive load (see Kranes 1995; Skea 1995) and, critically, give the impression that

winning is much more common than losing. Griffiths and Parke (2005) hypothesized that

background sounds and music might increase confidence of the players, increase arousal,

help to relax the player, help the player to disregard previous losses, and induce a romantic

state leading them to believe that they may win.

Although these previous studies suggest that sound influences players’ experience and

behaviour, we do not know how significant a factor sound is on the arousal response to slot

machines, or whether this response differs in recreational and problem gamblers. We

investigate this issue in the current paper by measuring gamblers’ physiological response

to various slots outcomes when paired with and without sound during slot machine play.

Physiological Response to Sound

Researchers have conjectured that winning sounds may provide a form of second-order

conditioning that is reinforcing (Schull 2005; Parke and Griffiths 2006). Studies measuring

changes in skin conductance levels as participants listen to music date back to at least the

1940s (e.g., Dreher 1947; Traxel and Wrede 1959), but often have contradictory findings

due to the varied conditions in which the studies took place. For example, Smith and

Morris (1976) found that stimulating music increased worry and anxiety, whereas Rohner

and Miller (1980) found that music had no influence on anxiety levels. Pitzen and Rauscher

(1998) and Hirokawa (2004) more recently found that stimulating music increased skin

conductance responses but not heart rate.

Previous studies have typically examined the physiological effect of music in isolation

of other sensory modalities. In slot machines, however, sounds are invariably paired with

images. In modern multiline slot machines, there is a perceptual onslaught of sights and

sounds that accompany the win. In the visual domain, the symbols responsible for the win

are often animated, causing them to stand out from the non-winning symbols. In addition,

for multiline games, the winning line is highlighted for the player by a coloured line that

joins the symbols responsible for the win. Advertising research suggests that image and

sound, when used congruently tend to amplify each other (e.g., Iwamiya 1994; Bullerjahn

and Gu ̈ldenring 1994; Bolivar et al. 1994). As such, studies into the response to sound in

slot machines must take into consideration the amplifying effect of the visual stimuli.

Perhaps the closest corollary to modern slot machines is video games. Previous research

into the physiological response to playing video games has shown that sound has a considerable effect on physiological arousal in video games. He ́bert et al. (2005) found that

playing video games with music/sound on led to higher cortisol levels than playing the

same games with the sound off. Jørgensen (2008) as well as Lipscomb and Zehnder (2004)

tested the effects of having sound on and off during video game play using verbal

J Gambl Stud

123
self-reporting (think-aloud and verbal scales), and showed that sound influenced players’

perceptions of play. Shilling et al. (2002) showed that playing video games with the sound

on led to reductions in body temperature, but increases in heart rate and skin conductance

levels compared to play with the sound off; a result also supported by Sanders and Scorgie

(2002). Wolfson and Case (2000) found that colour and volume of sound impacted heart

rate in videogame play.

In a short pilot study, Grimshaw et al. (2008) explored psychophysiological measurement (ECG, EMG, EEG and SCRs) to a customized version of the video game Half Life 2.

While those results were largely inconclusive, the same authors followed up with a second

study (Nacke et al. 2010), in which they tested psychophysiological response to sound on

versus off in video games. Neither electrodermal activity (EDA) nor facial electromyography (EMG) were influenced by the sounds of the game. It should be noted, however, that

only tonic measurements (changes over the entire sound on and off epochs) were recorded.

It is possible that physiological responses to sound may have occurred for specific events

within the game. In this same study, Nacke et al. found that the subjective reactions of the

players, as measured by the Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ; IJsselsteijn et al.

2008), were significantly influenced by the presence of sound. Their finding that sound

impacted the subjective reactions of players, but not their physiological reactions led the

authors to conclude that there may have been too many factors for an accurate psychophysiological response. They suggested ‘‘a more promising approach to psychophysiological analysis in digital games might be the focus on phasic psychophysiological player

responses in digital games and the alteration of a single game event’’ (p. 343).

The sounds that accompany slot machines have been much less researched than those of

video games. One study by Loba et al. (2001) provided empirical support for the contention that the sounds can lead to an overall increase in arousal. The authors contrasted a

condition in which the speed of slots play was increased and the sound was on, with a

second condition where the speed of play was slower than normal and the sound was

turned off. Pathological gamblers rated the slow speed-no sound condition as being both

less enjoyable and less exciting than higher speed play with sound. While this experiment

suggests that sound may play a role in arousal and enjoyment, sound and speed of play

were confounded, making it difficult to unambiguously link sound to arousal.

Arousal Response to Slot Machines

During slot machine play our pupils may dilate, our heart rate may increase and our palms

sweat, elevating our skin conductance level, indicating how arousing slot machine play can

be. Brown (1986) suggested that arousal was the major reinforcer of regular gambling

behaviour, and Anderson and Brown (1984) documented that problem gamblers showed

much higher arousal than non-problem gamblers at a casino. The patterns of arousal may

depend on wins and losses: Coventry and Constable (1999) and Coventry and Hudson

(2001) documented substantial heart rate increases for players who won, compared to

negligible changes for those who lost.

Skin conductance responses (SCRs) are often used to measure event-related phasic

(moment to moment) changes in arousal linked to the processing of emotionally-laden

stimuli. In the gambling domain, Dixon et al. (2010) investigated the physiological reactivity of players to wins and losses as they played a commercially available slot machine.

Wins led to significantly larger SCRs than losses. In a different study using a slot machine

simulator, Dixon et al. (2011), showed that the amplitude of the SCRs for wins was tightly

titrated to the size of the win; the larger the win, the larger the SCR. Similar findings have

J Gambl Stud

123
been shown by Lole et al. (2011). Moment-to-moment changes in heart rate can also be

used as an index of arousal during slot machine play. Dixon et al. (2010, 2011) showed a

temporary slowing of heart rate (heart rate deceleration) followed winning outcomes in slot

machines. For slots play on both actual slot machines and on slot machine simulators,

winning outcomes led to significant heart rate deceleration, whereas losing outcomes did

not.

A particularly intriguing aspect of modern multiline slot machines involves the capability of players to bet on more than one line at a time. Consider for example a player who

bets 10 cents on each of nine lines, for a total wager of 90 cents per spin. When they spin

and lose their entire wager, the machine goes into a state of quiet in both the visual and

auditory domain. When they spin and win more than their wager (e.g., they wager 90 cents

and win $1.80), they receive both visual and auditory feedback (e.g., the winning symbols

animate and the pay line is highlighted, and credits are counted up with a rolling sound.

Thus, there is a stark contrast between winning outcomes filled with ‘celebratory’ winrelated feedback, and losing outcomes characterized by a state of quiet. On a substantial

proportion of spins, however, the payback is less than the spin wager (e.g., the player bets

90 cents, and wins 40 cents back on one of the lines). Despite the fact that the player

actually loses money on this spin, (e.g., in the example above they lose 50 cents) the

machine highlights the ‘‘win’’ with animated symbols and celebratory songs. These outcomes have been referred to as losses disguised as wins or LDWs (Dixon et al. 2010;

Jensen et al. 2013; Harrigan et al. 2012). In modern slot machines, there are counters that

clearly show the total spin wager, and other counters that show how much the player won

on a given spin. Despite this information, novice slot machine players tend to ignore the

information on these counters and focus on the exciting elements of the games (the animated symbols and celebratory songs) to inform them if they have won or lost. Indeed, the

majority of novice players when exposed to LDWs indicate that these were winning spins,

even though they lost money on these outcomes (Jensen et al. 2013). Furthermore, after a

playing session, if players are asked to estimate on how many spins they won more than

they wagered, players tend to markedly overestimate the number of wins (the LDW

overestimation effect), likely because they either misinterpret LDWs as wins, or because

they conflate LDWs and wins in memory.

In sum, the auditory feedback that accompanies slot machine outcomes may make for a

more exciting playing experience (Loba et al. 2001), but may also serve as a secondary

reinforcer that could in part underlie the arousal responses that may make slots so

addictive. In addition, they may also serve as an important part of the disguise in LDWs.

The Current Study

In this study, participants played two sessions on a realistic multiline slot machine simulator. In one session (SOUND-ON), wins and LDWs were accompanied by visual celebratory

feedback in addition to custom-created rolling sounds and winning jingles. These sounds

were composed to sound similar to existing slot machines, but ensuring that players would

not be familiar with the exact sounds used. In a second session (SOUND-OFF), the sounds

were turned off, and only the visual celebratory feedback (identical to session one)

occurred. Both skin conductance responses and heart rate deceleration were recorded for

each outcome. At the end of play, we asked players which session they preferred (and

why). We also asked them to estimate how many times they won more than they wagered

on each session. We predict that sound contributes to enjoyment and excitement during

play such that players will rate excitement and enjoyment higher and have increased

J Gambl Stud

123
physiological response measures during play with sound. We also predict that players will

overestimate the number of times they won during slots play (the LDW overestimation

effect) when playing with the sound on.

Method

Participants

A total of 96 slot machine players (52 males, mean age = 48.96) were recruited to participate in this study. A minority (n = 22, 13 males, mean age = 42.15; 9 females, mean

age = 42.11) were recruited using the online classified ads (www.kijiji.com), and tested in

a laboratory at the University of Waterloo, while the majority (n = 74, 39 males, mean

age = 49.25; 35 females, mean age = 52.91) were recruited at the entrance to an Ontario

slots venue, and tested in a meeting room at the slots venue upstairs from the slots floor.

Gambling severity level, as assessed by the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) of

the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI) (Ferris and Wynne 2001), ranged from 0 to

22. Slot machine gambling frequencies were assessed using the CPGI and ranged from

(0–365) times within the last year. There were 46 (18 female) non-problem gamblers

(PGSI scores from 0 to 2), 31 (15 female) Moderate-Risk gamblers (PGSI scores from 3 to

7) and 19 (11 female) problem gamblers (8 or over on the PGSI). The non-problem

gamblers were subdivided into two groups based on their slot machine gambling frequency. There were 26 (11 female) low-frequency non-problem gamblers (who gambled

less than 12 times per year) and 20 (7 female), high-frequency non-problem gamblers who

gambled at least once per month). Participants were excluded if they had a history of heart

disease or abnormality, had hearing difficulties, were taking stimulant or depressant

medication, or were currently in treatment for problem gambling.

Apparatus

Physiological Measurements

Skin conductance and heart rate changes were acquired using an eight channel, ADinstruments Powerlab (model 8/30). The Powerlab system amplified the ECG signal from

three disposable electrodes attached below each clavicle and above the left hip (ground).

Skin conductance levels were recorded using non-gelled electrodes attached to the upper

phalanges of the middle and index fingers of the left hand. The simulator sent an event

marker to the Powerlab indicating the type of outcome (win, LDW or loss). The marker

was sent as soon as the fifth reel stopped spinning (i.e., as soon as the outcome was known

to the gamblers). Using these markers enabled us to time-lock simulator events (commencement of feedback on wins, LDWs and losses) to participants’ changes in heart rates

and skin conductance levels.

Slot Machine Simulator (Game Planit Interactive Corp)

A nine-line realistic simulator was used to simulate slot machine play (see Fig. 1). This

game had a visual and sonic musical instrument theme. The simulator had counters that

showed the number of lines played, the amount bet per line, and the total bet per spin. As in

J Gambl Stud

123
commercially available slot machines, during multiline play, the amount of credits that the

player gained on that spin was shown upon outcome delivery. For regular losses the

‘‘payout’’ counter showed 0, for LDWs and wins the payout counter sequentially flashed

rising digits culminating in the amount of credits won on that spin. In addition, the

combination of symbols responsible for the line win was shown by a line connecting the

symbols. Credit gains were accompanied by winning jingles whose lengths ranged from

1.5 s to a maximum of 12 s. Also like commercially available machines, the bigger the win

the longer the song. A simulator was used rather than an existing slot machine because it

allowed for several levels of customization and control beyond what could be achieved

using an actual slot machine. Most importantly, it afforded the ability to equate the number

of wins, LDWs and losses in the SOUND-ON and SOUND-OFF conditions.

Self-report Measures

The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI; Ferris and Wynne 2001) was used to

assess demographic information (age, gender) and the types of gambling players engaged

in (slots, cards etc.). The frequency of slot machine play was assessed using the CPGI

question which asked players to indicate ‘‘In the past 12 months how often did you bet or

spend money on slot machines in a casino?’’ The PGSI component of the CPGI was used to

assess gambling severity. A number of other questionnaires (The BIS/BAS scale (Carver

and White 1994), the DASS21 (Lovibond and Lovibond 1995), the PANAS (Watson et al.

1988), and the BIS 11 (Patton et al. 1995) were administered for purposes peripheral to the

current study).

Fig. 1 Screen shot from slots machine simulator

J Gambl Stud

123
The Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ) (IJsselsteijn et al. 2008) was originally

designed for video game play (typically, first-person shooter games) to assess seven

components of game play experience: sensory and imaginative immersion, competency,

negative affect, positive affect, flow, challenge and tension. We used the 14 item in-game

component designed for repeated assessments of game experience (two questions per

component). The GEQ asks participants questions concerning their game experience e.g.,

‘‘I had to put effort into it’’ (assesses the ‘‘challenge’’ component), and participants are

presented with ‘‘Not at all’’, ‘‘Slightly’’, ‘‘Moderately’’, ‘‘Fairly’’, ‘‘Extremely’’ as response

options. These categorical responses are converted to a 0–4 scale, and the total component

score is based on the average of the two questions tapping that component. The sensory and

imaginative immersion component could not be assessed as one of the questions pertains to

the ‘‘story’’ of the game. The wording of the two immersion questions were altered to fit

slots play (to retain the 14 item structure), but the immersion component was not analyzed.

Arousal and Pleasantness Questions

To assess how arousing and pleasant the players found the slot machine simulator, they

were given the following items: using the GEQ format (1) ‘‘I found this playing session

arousing/exciting’’; (2) ‘‘I found this playing session pleasant’’. Following each item,

players were given the options ‘‘Not at all’’, ‘‘Slightly’’, ‘‘Moderately’’, ‘‘Fairly’’, and

‘‘Extremely’’.

Win Estimate, and Game Preference Questions

After playing a block of spins with sound, and without sound, players were given the

following items: (1) ‘‘Thinking of the FIRST block of 200 spins you played, estimate the

number of times you won more than you wagered. Give a number between 1 and 200’’; (2)

‘‘Thinking of the LAST block of 200 spins you played, estimate the number of times you

won more than you wagered. Give a number between 1 and 200’’. Next, they were asked

which block of spins they preferred (block 1 or block 2), and then asked an open-ended

question why they preferred that block of spins.

Procedures

All participants were asked to participate in a research study (recruited through either an ad

on Kijiji or a poster at the slots venue). Upon showing an interest in participating, participants read an information synopsis of the study and informed consent was obtained.

After giving consent, players filled out the Gambling involvement section of the CPGI,

then the PGSI. As described above, participants filled out a number of questionnaires

peripheral to the purpose of this study. Players were informed that they would be given $25

for participating (slots participants received a gift card), and that they would be able to win

up to an additional $20.00 dollars (in cash) depending on their winnings. Players started

with 1,500 credits at the beginning of a slots session, and ended up with 1,110 credits.

Since outcomes were fixed, all participants actually won $11.10 per session. The possibility of winning extra funds was used to combat the artificiality of the experience (see

Anderson and Brown 1984). Players then played two slots sessions on the simulator in

which players bet 1 credit on each of nine lines.

J Gambl Stud

123
Participants played two blocks of 200 spins each (SOUND-ON and SOUND OFF were counterbalanced across participants). Each block was composed of 144 losses, 28 LDWs, and 28

wins. In each block, participants wagered 1,800 credits (9 credits per spin 9 200 spins).

The simulator paid out a total of 1,605 credits for a payback percentage of 89.17 %

(comparable to the payback percentages used in slot machines in Ontario). The LDWs

formed two separate bins with 14 spins in each bin. One bin consisted of credit ‘‘wins’’ of

2–4 credits (net losses of 5–7 credits). The second LDW bin comprised ‘‘wins’’ of 5–8

credits (net losses of 1–4 credits). Actual wins were any spin outcome over 9 credits. Wins

were arranged into 4 bins: there were 8 spins yielding credit gains of 10–17; 9 spins

yielding credit gains of 18–50 credits, 8 spins yielding credit gains of 51–99 credits, and 3

spins yielding credit gains of between 100 and 130 credits. Each of the two blocks involved

the same series of 200 outcomes (but the sequential order of the outcomes was reversed

across blocks).

The spin rate was constrained. Following the outcomes, the spin button was disabled for

3 s (on wins this duration was partially filled by the winning songs). After 3 s participants

could initiate the next spin. This was done in order to effectively measure heart rate

deceleration.

Results

Heart Rate Deceleration

HRD was measured using inter-beat intervals, which refers to the temporal distance (in ms)

between R-waves of consecutive heartbeats. The pre-outcome IBI was the temporal distance between the two heartbeats just prior to outcome delivery. Post-outcome IBIs were

separated into four bins: IBI 1 comprised the temporal distance between the first and

second heart beats following outcome delivery; IBI 2 comprised the distance between beats

2 and 3 post-outcome; IBI 3 comprised the distance between beats 3 and 4; and IBI 4, the

distance between beats 4 and 5. Heart beat trains were scanned and filtered to minimize

artefacts typically due to movements. Two participants dropped out prior to completing

both conditions (both were moderate risk gamblers; 4 and 7 on the PGSI). For 9 participants, the ECG signals were too noisy to analyze (optimal filtering still led to hundreds of

artefacts), or other technical problems prevented us from analyzing the data. For the

remaining 85 participants, R-waves were labelled, and the pre-outcome IBI, and 4 postoutcome IBIs were analyzed. Prior to calculating averages for each person, the IBIs were

submitted to the Van Selst and Jolicoeur (1994) observation-dependent outlier elimination

procedure. This ensured that any artefacts not detected by the scanning protocol were

removed prior to the main analysis.

The outlier-free data was analysed using a 2 9 7 9 5 9 4 mixed-model ANOVA with

Sound Condition (SOUND-ON, SOUND-OFF), Outcome (losses, 2–4 credits, 5–8 credits, 10–17

credits, 18–50 credits, 51–99 credits, 100–130 credits) and IBI (pre-outcome IBI, IBI1,

IBI2, IBI3, IBI4) as the within factors, and with Gambling Status Group, (Lo-freq NPG,

Hi-freq NPG, Moderate-Risk, PG) as the between factor. For comparisons where Mauchly’s test of Sphericity was found to be significant, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was

applied, prior to calculating the probability values cited below.

This analysis revealed no main effects, but a significant Outcome by Gambling Status

Group interaction F(18, 486) = 1.904, p = .033. There was also an Outcome by IBI

interaction F(24, 1,944) = 2.103, p = .045. Importantly there was neither a main effect of

J Gambl Stud

123
Sound, nor any other higher order interactions involving this variable. Figure 2 shows the

Outcome by Gambling Status Group interaction. This interaction appears to be caused by

an overall reduction in the heart period of the low-frequency non-problem gamblers at the

largest win sizes compared to the moderate-risk group. This interaction was not predicted,

does not involve sound, and therefore was not decomposed further.

Figure 3 shows the patterns of HRD for the different outcomes, and reveals that heart

rate deceleration is absent for the losses (the dashed line in Fig. 3) but can be seen for all

credit gains (wins as well as LDWs). The largest heart rate deceleration is for wins from

100 to 130 credits. Although heart rate deceleration appears to differentiate wins from

losses, there was no support for the prediction that sounds would increase heart rate

deceleration.

Skin Conductance Response (SCR) Amplitudes

SCRs were calculated for losses, and credit gains of 2–4 credits, 5–8 credits, 10–17 credits,

18–50 credits, 51–99 credits, 100–130 credits. SCRs were calculated by first defining a 2-s

window that occurred 1 s after outcome delivery (the final reel stopping). To calculate the

SCR, the skin conductance level at the beginning of the window was subtracted from the

peak skin conductance level within the window. To reduce the potential skew of SCRs, a

square root transformation was applied to these difference scores (Dawson et al. 2000).

For each participant, seven mean SCRs were calculated based on the outlier-free

averages of that participant’s SCR amplitudes for that outcome within a specific sound

condition. Since the numbers of observations for each outcome were very different (e.g.,

there were 144 losses, but only 3 wins above 100 credits) prior to calculating the means,

outliers were eliminated using the procedures of Van Selst and Jolicoeur (1994), which

uses a sliding criterion based on the number of observations in the particular cell.

Moderate Risk

Hi-Freq NPGs

Lo-Freq NPGs

PGs

0.76

0.78

0.8

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

loss 2 to 4

credits

5 to 8

credits

10 to 17

credits

18 to 50

credits

51 to 99

credits

100 to 130

credits

Heart Period (msec) 

Fig. 2 Average inter-beat intervals for the four gambling groups for each of the slot machine outcomes.

Lo-Freq NPGs low frequency non-problem gamblers, Hi-Freq NPGs high frequency non-problem gamblers,

Moderate-Risk moderate risk gamblers, PGs problem gamblers

J Gambl Stud

123
Of the 96 participants, 2 dropped out prior to completing both conditions (as noted

above), and 6 could not be analyzed due to technical problems. In addition, prior to

conducting this analysis one low-frequency non-problem gambling participant with

extremely high SCRs (over 3 standard deviation units) across multiple outcome conditions

was eliminated. SCRs on the remaining 87 participants were analyzed using an Outcome

(losses, 2–4 credits, 5–9 credits, 10–17 credits, 18–50 credits, 51–99 credits, 100–130

credits) by Condition (SOUND-ON, SOUND-OFF) repeated measures ANOVA with Gambling

Status Group (Lo-freq NPGs, Hi-freq NPGs, Moderate-Risk, PGs) as a between subjects

variable.

In this preliminary analysis, there was neither a main effect nor any interactions

involving Gambling Status. In order to get more stable estimates of error variance, the

Outcome by Sound condition ANOVA was re-run without this Gambling Status variable.

For comparisons where Mauchly’s test of Sphericity was found to be significant, a

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied to the degrees of freedom prior to calculating

probability values.

The analysis without the Gambling Status variable revealed a main effect of Sound

F(1, 84) = 4.597, p = .035. SCRs in response to the outcomes were significantly higher

in the SOUND-ON condition compared to the SOUND-OFF condition. This main effect can be

seen in Fig. 4 by comparing the solid line (depicting the SCRs to loss/LDW/win outcomes with the SOUND–ON condition) to the dotted line (SOUND-OFF condition). There was

also a main effect of Outcome F(6, 504) = 6.207, p\.001. As predicted there was a

strong linear trend to the data F(1, 84) = 14.146, p\.001) with SCRs increasing in

amplitude as win size increased. The Sound by Condition interaction was not significant

F(6, 504) = .956, n.s.

0.822

0.824

0.826

0.828

0.83

0.832

0.834

0.836

0.838

0.84

0.842

Heart Period (msec)

loss

2 to 4

5 to 8

10 to 17

18 to 50

51 to 99

100 to 130

Fig. 3 The heart-period for the inter-beat intervals just prior to outcome delivery, and for the four interbeat

intervals following outcome delivery

J Gambl Stud

123
Game Experience Questionnaire

Six components of the Game Experience Questionnaire were assessed: competence,

negative affect, flow, positive affect, challenge and tension. Each component was evaluated as a dependent variable using a repeated measures analysis of variance with sound

condition (SOUND-ON/SOUND-OFF) as the repeated measure and gambling group as the

between subjects variable. There were no significant main effects of Sound, or Gambling

Status Group or any significant interactions for any of the core components of the Game

Experience Questionnaire.

Arousal and Pleasantness

The subjective feelings of arousal and pleasantness for the SOUND-ON and SOUND-OFF blocks

were compared using repeated measures Analyses of Variance with Sound (SOUND-ON,

SOUND-OFF) as the repeated variable, and Gambling Status Group (Lo-freq NPGs, Hi-freq

NPGs, Moderate-Risk, PGs) as a between-subjects variable. For pleasantness, there was no

main effect of Sound condition, no main effect of Gambling Status, and no interaction

between these variables. For arousal there was no main effect of Gambling Status

F(3,88) = 1.4, n.s., but there was a main effect of Sound condition F(1,88) = 4.4,

p = .039 caused by gamblers rating the SOUND-ON condition (M = 1.0) as more arousing

than the SOUND-OFF condition (M = .815).

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

loss 2 to 4

credits

5 to 8

credits

10 to 17

credits

18 to 50

credits

51 to 99

credits

100 to 130

credits

Skin Conductnace Responses (Microsiemens)

Sound ON

Sound OFF

Fig. 4 Skin conductance response amplitudes for slot machine outcomes in the SOUND-ON and SOUND-OFF

conditions as a function of outcome delivery

J Gambl Stud

123
Preference for the Session with Sounds

Ninety-one participants gave an answer to the question of whether they preferred the

SOUND-ON or the SOUND-OFF block of spins. Of these 91 participants, 66 (72.5 %) preferred

the game with sounds, (p\.001, One-Sample Binomial Test). Of the 66 participants who

preferred the SOUND-ON block over the SOUND-OFF block, 42 explicitly mentioned the sounds

as the reason for their preference. An additional five participants mentioned that they

thought they won more during the session with winning sounds (even though the two

sessions were equated for the amount won).

Win Estimates

In order to determine if the presence of sound influenced the gamblers’ perception of how

often they won, a repeated measures ANOVA with Sound condition and Gambling Status

was conducted. There was a main effect of Sound condition F(1,88) = 5.600, p = .020.

As can be seen in Fig. 5, the main effect of Sound condition is caused by gamblers

reporting greater numbers of wins in the SOUND-ON than the SOUND-OFF condition.

There was also a main effect of Gambling Status F(3,88) = 2.775, p = .046. As can be

seen in Fig. 6, this main effect was attributable to moderate–risk and problem gamblers

having higher win estimates than the non-problem gamblers. Post hoc analyses (least

significant differences test) indeed revealed that the moderate-risk and problem gamblers

did not differ in their win estimates, nor did the high and low frequency non-problem

gamblers, but the moderate-risk and problem gamblers both reported significantly higher

win estimates than the low and high frequency non-problem gamblers. There was no

Gambling Status by Sound condition interaction F(3,88) = 2.311, n.s.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Sound ON Sound OFF

Win Estimates

Fig. 5 Gamblers’ estimates of how many spins (out of 200) on which they won more than they wagered.

The actual number of wins within each of the 200-spin blocks was 28

J Gambl Stud

123
Discussion

Here we provide converging evidence that sound influences the overall levels of arousal of

players playing multiline slot machines, at least as measured by skin conductance and

subjective arousal. Skin conductance responses were significantly larger for outcomes in

the SOUND-ON condition than in the SOUND-OFF condition. Players also subjectively rated the

SOUND-ON condition as being significantly more arousing than the SOUND-OFF condition.

Thus both skin conductance responses and subjective reports suggest that winning sounds

make the game more arousing.

The vast majority of the players that were tested preferred the playing session where

wins were accompanied by sounds. This suggests that not only do sounds make the playing

session more arousing, but also that they find this arousal pleasurable. If, as Brown (1986)

has suggested, arousal is the reinforcer of gambling behaviour, then the results of this study

suggest that sounds contribute to the arousing properties of modern multiline slots play and

by extension gambling behaviour.

One limitation of the psychophysical data collected in this study involves heart rate

deceleration. Here we showed that although HRD appeared to be sensitive to winning

versus losing outcomes, it was insensitive to the presence or absence of sound. Sound did

not increase the rate of deceleration compared to the SOUND-OFF condition. SCRs on the

other hand were sensitive to the presence of sounds, and support the subjective arousal

ratings of the participants.

Multiline slots games feature a specific type of loss that at least some players miscategorize as a win. Previously Jensen et al. (2013) have shown that novice players will claim

that they have ‘‘won’’ on outcomes where they win back less than they wagered (i.e., claim

a win when they actually lost money). When players were asked to estimate the number of

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lo-Freq NPG Hi-Freq NPG Moderate-Risk PGs

Win Estimates

Fig. 6 The average win estimates for low frequency non-problem gamblers (Lo-Freq NPG), high frequency

non-problem gamblers (Hi-Freq NPG), Moderate-Risk and problem gamblers (PGs)

J Gambl Stud

123
spins on which they won more than they wagered within a playing session, these novice

players tend to overestimate these numbers of wins. The degree of overestimation depends

on the number of losses disguised as wins that they encounter.

Here, we show that sounds contribute to this overestimation effect. Overall, players

overestimated the number of times that they won playing this slot machine simulator. In the

SOUND-OFF condition, players on average estimated that they won 33 times when in reality

they were only exposed to 28 wins (thus, on average they overestimate by 5 (i.e., 15 %) the

number of times they won). Crucially, this propensity to overestimate these wins is exacerbated when sounds accompany the losses disguised as wins. In this SOUND-ON condition,

players estimated that they won on average 36 times (an overestimation of 8 (i.e. 24 %)). As

such, sounds may be an integral part of the disguise in the losses disguised as wins, causing

players to think that they won more often during a playing session than they actually did.

We have argued that losses disguised as wins (LDWs) are a failure of categorization.

We propose that the similarity between the sights and sounds of the actual wins and LDWs

causes players to miscategorise these outcomes as wins rather than correctly categorize

these outcomes as losses. In this study, we showed that sounds contribute significantly to

this miscategorization process.

Although sounds impacted the physiological and psychological arousal levels experienced by participants, and influenced their preference, sounds did not impact scores on the

Game Experience Questionnaire. Recall that this questionnaire was designed to measure

the experiences of video games, with much of the work involving first-person shooter type

games with specific stories being an integral part of the game. Indeed, our results seem to

suggest the opposite of the results to a first-person shooter—sound induced psychophysiological changes, but no sound induced changes in GEQ scores. One possibility for this

discrepancy is that the core dimensions measured by the GEQ do not capture the role of

sound in slot machine games. In slot machine games there is no violence, no story and no

skill, and it may be that slots games preferentially activate arousal via their variable ratio

reinforcement schedules (Haw 2008). For this arousal dimension, players in this experiment indicated that sound played a key role.

There were, of course, some limitations to the study presented here. Anderson and

Brown (1984) illustrated the importance of the casino environment in arousal levels of

experienced gamblers, suggesting that ‘‘doubt is cast on laboratory gambling as a valid

analogue of the real gambling situation.’’ Although the majority of the participants were

indeed tested at a casino, they were not tested on the casino floor and were thus not

immersed fully in the casino environment. Although the casino floor may have provided

more accurate results in some respects, it would have required us giving up much

experimental control. Indeed, using a separate testing room is particularly beneficial to a

study such as this, because we could not expect a casino to turn off the sound of even one

(never mind all) of its slot machines, and the sound of winning from other machines may

have influenced the outcome here.

Another potential limitation of our study is that in order to control outcomes for our

study, we used a slot machine simulator and not a real slot machine. The simulator was

designed to be as similar to a real slot machine as possible in terms of its audio-visual

content. The slot machine simulator was necessary in order for us to manipulate and test

the key variables of interest. Indeed, only by controlling the payback percentage, the

number of wins, and the total amounts won at the end of the sound-on and sound-off

sessions, for example, can we implicate the importance of sound.

To mitigate the potential limitations of our experiment, we provided subjects with an

opportunity to win real money, increasing the realism of wins and losses (Ladouceur et al.

J Gambl Stud

123
2003; Wulfert et al. 2008). Furthermore, the use of a within-subjects design meant that we

could make reasonable assumptions regarding the results. Future research may wish to

explore the response of players in real casino settings, perhaps employing ear plugs and

noise cancelling headphones to reduce auditory feedback (although it is nearly impossible

to completely eliminate sound since we hear through bone conductance in addition to

through our ears).

In sum, the sounds that accompanied a multiline video slots game impacted the arousal

of participants both psychophysically, and psychologically. The sounds also influenced

players’ preference such that the majority of players preferred playing slots that were

accompanied by winning sounds. Importantly, our research suggests that sound effects may

be an integral component to the disguise in losses disguised as wins. Players’ tendencies to

overestimate the number of times they won during a slots session was exacerbated by the

sounds that accompanied the losses disguised as wins. Although sounds may have contributed to their enjoyment of the game, sound may also lead to an overestimation of

winning. Both of these effects may contribute to the gambling problems, such as misbeliefs

about the true chances of winning, and persistence that some players experience when

playing slot machines. While we cannot expect casinos to turn off the sound in their slot

machines, we believe that altering or removing the sonic disguise of losses disguised as

wins may impact the overestimation effect to which sound is a clear contributor.

Acknowledgments The researchers acknowledge the generous support of the Ontario Problem Gambling

Research Centre for the funding of this project. Special thanks to Lisa Wojrowicz, Sarah Moros and Jeff

Templeton for their help in aspects of the data analysis.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License

which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the

source are credited.

References

Anderson, G., & Brown, R. I. (1984). Real and laboratory gambling, sensation-seeking and arousal. British

Journal of Psychology, 75, 401–410.

Bolivar, V. J., Cohen, A. J., & Fentress, J. C. (1994). Semantic and formal congruency in music and motion

pictures: Effects on the interpretation of visual action. Psychomusicology, 13, 28–59.

Brown, R. I. (1986). Arousal and sensation seeking components in the general explanation of gambling and

gambling addictions. The International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 1001–1016.

Bullerjahn, C., & Gu ̈ldenring, M. (1994). An empirical investigation of effects of film music using qualitative content analysis. Psychomusicology, 13, 99–118.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to

impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.

Coventry, K. R., & Constable, B. (1999). Physiological arousal and sensation seeking in female fruit

machine players. Addiction, 94, 425–430.

Coventry, K. R., & Hudson, J. (2001). Gender differences, physiological arousal and the role of winning in

fruit machine gamblers. Addiction, 96, 871–879.

Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Filion, D. L. (2000). The electrodermal system. In J. T. Cacioppo, L.

G. Tassinary, & G. G. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 200–223). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., Jarick, M., MacLaren, V. V., Fugelsang, J. A., & Sheepy, E. (2011).

Psychophysical arousal signatures of near-misses in slot machine play. International Gambling

Studies, 11, 393–407.

Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., Sandhu, R., Collins, K., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2010). Losses disguised as wins

in modern multi-line video slot machines. Addiction, 105, 1819–1824.

J Gambl Stud

123
Dixon, L., Trigg, R., & Griffiths, M. (2007). An empirical investigation of music and gambling behaviour.

International Gambling Studies, 7, 315–326.

Dreher, R. E. (1947). The relationship between verbal reports and the galvanic skin response. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 87–94.

Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian

Centre on Substance Abuse.

Griffiths, M., & Parke, J. (2005). The psychology of music in gambling environments: An observational

research note. Journal of Gambling Issues, 13. doi:10.4309/jgi.2005.13.8.

Grimshaw, M., Lindley, C. A., & Nacke, L. (2008). Sound and immersion in the first-person shooter: Mixed

measurement of the player’s sonic experience. Proceedings of the audio mostly conference 2008, Pitea ̊,

Sweden.

Haas, E. C., & Edworthy, J. (1996). Designing urgency into auditory warnings using pitch, speed and

loudness. Computing and Control Engineering Journal, 7, 193–198.

Harrigan, K. A., Dixon, M. J., MacLaren, V., Collins, K., & Fugelsang, J. (2012). The maximum rewards at

the minimum price: Reinforcement rates and payback percentages in multi-line slot machines. Journal

of Gambling Issues, 26, 11–29.

Haw, J. (2008). The relationship between reinforcement and gaming machine choice. Journal of Gambling

Studies, 24, 55–61.

He ́bert, S., Be ́land, R., & Dionne-Fournelle, O. (2005). Physiological stress response to video-game playing:

The contribution of built-in music. Life Sciences, 76, 2371–2380.

Hirokawa, E. (2004). Effects of music, listening, and relaxation instructions on arousal changes and the

working memory task in older adults. Journal of Music Therapy, 41, 107–127.

IJsselsteijn, W., Poels, K., & de Kort, Y. A. W. (2008). The Game Experience Questionnaire: Development

of a self-report measure to assess player experiences of digital games. Eindhoven: TU Eindhoven.

Iwamiya, S. (1994). Interaction between auditory and visual processing when listening to music in an audio

visual context. Psychomusicology, 13, 133–154.

Jensen, C., Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., Sheepy, E., Fugelsang, J. A., & Jarick, M. (2013). Misinterpreting

‘‘winning’’ in multiline slot machine games. International Gambling Studies, 13, 112–126.

Jørgensen, K. (2008). Left in the dark: Playing computer games with the sound turned off. In Collins, K.

(Ed.), From Pac-Man to pop music: Interactive audio in games and new media (pp. 163–176).

Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Group.

Kranes, D. (1995). Play Grounds. Special Issue: Gambling: Philosophy and Policy. Journal of Gambling

Studies, 11, 91–102.

Ladouceur, R., Sevigny, S., Blaszczynski, A., O’Connor, K., & Lavoie, M. E. (2003). Video lottery:

Winning expectancies and arousal. Addiction, 98, 733–738.

Lipscomb, S. D., & Zehnder, S. M. (2004). Immersion in the virtual environment: The effect of a musical

score on the video gaming experience. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human

Science, 23, 337–343.

Loba, P., Stewart, S. H., Klein, R. M., & Blackburn, J. R. (2001). Manipulations of the features of standard

video lottery terminal (VLT) games: Effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblers. Journal of

Gambling Studies, 17, 297–320.

Lole, L., Gonsalvez, C. J., Blaszczynski, A., & Clarke, A. R. (2011). Electrodermal activity reliably captures

physiological differences between wins and losses during gambling on electronic machines. Psychophysiology, 49, 154–163.

Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.).

Sydney: Psychology Foundation.

Marmurek, H. H. C., Finlay, K., Kanetkar, V., & Londerville, J. (2007). The influence of music on estimates

of Moderate-Risk gambling intentions: An analysis by casino design. International Gambling Studies,

7, 113–122.

Nacke, L. E., Grimshaw, M. N., & Lindley, C. A. (2010). More than a feeling: Measurement of sonic user

experience and psychophysiology in a first-person shooter game. Interacting with Computer, 22,

336–343.

Noseworthy, T. J., & Finlay, K. (2009). A comparison of ambient casino sound and music: Effects on

dissociation and on perceptions of elapsed time while playing slot machines. Journal of Gambling

Studies, 25, 331–342.

Parke, J., & Griffiths, M. (2006). The psychology of the fruit machine: The role of structural characteristics

(revisited). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 151–179.

Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768–774.

J Gambl Stud

123
Pitzen, L. J., & Rauscher, F. H. (1998). Choosing music, not style of music, reduces stress and improves task

performance. Poster presented at the American Psychological Society.

Rivlin, G. (2004). The tug of the newfangled slot machines. New York Times Sunday, May 9, 2004.

Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/magazine/09SLOTS.html.

Rohner, S. J., & Miller, R. (1980). Degrees of familiar and affective music and their effects on state anxiety.

Journal of Music Therapy, 17, 2–15.

Sanders, R., & Scorgie, R. (2002). The effect of sound delivery methods on the user’s sense of presence in a

virtual environment (Unpublished Master’s dissertation). MOVES Institute, Naval Postgraduate

School, Monterey, CA.

Schull, N. D. (2005). Digital gambling: The coincidence of desire and design. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 597, 65–81.

Shilling, R., Zyda, M., & Wardynski, E. C. (2002). Introducing emotion into military simulation and

videogame design: America’s army: Operations and VIRTE. Game-On 2002.

Skea, W. H. (1995). ‘‘Postmodern’’ Las Vegas and its effects on gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11,

231–235.

Smith, C. A., & Morris, L. W. (1976). Effects of stimulative and sedative music on cognitive and emotional

components of anxiety. Psychological Reports, 38, 1187–1193.

Spenwyn, J., Barrett, D. J. K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The role of light and music in gambling behaviour:

An empirical pilot study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 107–118.

Traxel, W., & Wrede, G. (1959). Changes in physiological skin responses as affected by musical selection.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 57–61.

Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination.

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631–650.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegan, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive

and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Wolfson, S., & Case, G. (2000). The effects of sound and colour on responses to a computer game.

Interacting with Computers, 13, 183–192.

Wulfert, E., Franco, C., Williams, K., Roland, B., & Maxson, J. H. (2008). The role of money in the

excitement of gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 380–390.

J Gambl Stud

123
Losses disguised as wins in modern multi-line video

slot machinesadd_3050 1..6

Mike J. Dixon, Kevin A. Harrigan, Rajwant Sandhu, Karen Collins & Jonathan A. Fugelsang

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

ABSTRACT

Aims Players can wager on multiple lines of modern slot machines. When they spin and fail to gain any credits, the

machine goes into a state of relative quiet. By contrast, when they spin and win, these spins are accompanied by

reinforcing sights and sounds. Such reinforcement also occurs when the amount won is less than the spin wager. We

sought to show that these ‘losses disguised as wins’, or LDWs, would be as arousing as wins, and more arousing than

regular losses. Measurement and participants We measured skin conductance response (SCR) amplitudes and heartrate changes following wins, LDWs and losses for 40 novices playing a multi-line slot machine. Findings SCR

amplitudes were similar for wins and LDWs—both were significantly larger than for regular losses. Conclusions For

novice players, the reinforcing sights and sounds of the slot machine triggered arousal on wins, where the number of

credits gained was greater than the spin wager, but also on ‘losses disguised as wins’ where the amount ‘won’ was less

than the spin wager. Despite the fact that players lost money on these spins, these outcomes were more arousing than

regular losses where no credits were gained. Although these findings involve novice players, the heightened arousal

associated with these losses may have implications for the development of problem gambling, as arousal has been

viewed as a key reinforcer in gambling behaviour.

Keywords Arousal, gambling, heart-rate deceleration, skin conductance, slot machines.

Correspondence to: Mike J. Dixon, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada.

E-mail: mjdixon@uwaterloo.ca

Submitted 17 November 2009; initial review completed 15 January 2010; final version accepted 15 March 2010

INTRODUCTION

The modern video slot machine is a far cry from the familiar, three-reel, one-armed bandit. In the traditional threereel slot machine, one puts coins into the slot machine

and hopes that the winning symbols will fall on the pay

line that falls across the three reels. Hence what you

wager, and what you win or lose, are relatively easy to

monitor. In modern video slots there are up to five video

reels, a myriad of flashing lights and symbols, flashing

messages and high-fidelity audio that plays certain songs

during spins and other songs during wins. Rather than

being limited to wagering on a single line, players can

wager on multiple pay lines on every spin, and indeed

flashing messages advise the player to do so—‘for

maximum action play all 15 lines!’. Amid this William

Jamesian blooming, buzzing, confusion patterns emerge

for the gambler. When players lose, the machine goes into

a state of ‘quiet’ in both the visual and auditory domain.

When players win, certain symbols flash and the symbols

responsible for the win become joined by a coloured line

indicating on which of the played lines the win occurred.

Higher-paying symbols have unique sounds that the slot

machine plays, and credit gains are all accompanied by

the repeated chiming sound as the machine ‘counts up’

how much you gained on that spin. In video slots games

in which the player bets on many lines, however, the

majority of these ‘wins’ are actually less than the spin

wager. That is, despite the flashing symbols, despite

seeing the outlining of the symbols that led to the ‘win’

and despite hearing the chiming sound as the machine

counts up your winnings, if you subtract the total that

you wagered on the spin from the total that you ‘won’ on

that spin the value is negative (i.e. you lost!). We refer to

these outcomes as ‘losses disguised as wins’.

An analysis of the design documents for multi-line

games reveals that losses disguised as wins (LDWs) can

occur relatively frequently, with the frequency rising as

RESEARCH REPORT doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03050.x

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction
more and more lines are played. This is important when

one considers that on some gambling machines one can

wager on as many as 100 lines per spin. Wagering on

multiple lines is like playing multiple games at once.

Through the Freedom of Information Act we obtained

the design documents for a game called Lucky Larry’s

Lobstermania. We analysed all 259 440 000 possible

Lobstermania outcomes for players playing from one to

15 lines—the maximum in this game. Table 1 shows the

percentage of spins that result in wins, LDWs and regular

losses. This table shows that when few lines are played,

few LDWs occur. Importantly, when 15 lines are played,

the LDWs actually outnumber the wins.

Our central question of interest is how novice players

would react physiologically to LDWs. We predicted that

the similar sights and sounds that accompany both wins

and LDWs would cause players to react physiologically to

LDWs as though they were wins. We chose to monitor

participants’ psychophysiological reactivity to wins,

LDWs and regular losses as opposed to their self-reports

because of the strong link between gambling, arousal and

slot machines that are designed to maximize this arousal.

Although our ultimate interest is in the development of

problem gambling, in this experiment we tested novice

players. We reasoned that more seasoned gamblers might

have developed conditioned autonomic responses to the

winning sights and sounds of slot machines such as Lobstermania before they entered the laboratory. Given the

laws of conditioning this could bias the results unduly in

the predicted direction. A more conservative approach

would be to see if novice players who had no opportunity

to develop such conditioned responses would show

equivalent arousal responses to wins and LDWs.

Lobstermania is a typical modern video slot machine.

It has five reels with three visible symbols per reel (see

Fig. 1). Players can wager on up to 15 different pay lines

on any given spin. The first three lines are the horizontal

rows in Fig. 1 and the remaining 12 are various zigzag

lines traversing the 15 visible symbols. Any three consecutive identical symbols (starting from the left) on any

of these lines would result in what the machine calls a

‘win’.

This version of Lobstermania is a ‘5-cent game’,

which means one credit equals 5 cents. The leftmost box

near the bottom ($841.45) shows the player’s running

total. The box to the right shows the value of each credit

($0.05). The ‘lines’ box shows the number of lines on

which the player has wagered (15 in this example). The

‘bet’ box shows the number of credits wagered on each

line (five credits, or 25 cents in this example). The ‘total

bet’ box (75 credits, or $3.75) is the wager per spin and is

calculated as the number of lines (15) multiplied by the

‘bet’ per line (five credits). The box labelled ‘win’ shows

that the gambler ‘won’ 25 credits on that spin. Hence

Fig. 1 shows a LDW in which the gambler lost 50 credits,

or $2.50.

Although LDWs are obviously losses, the myriad of

sights and sounds that occur during slots play may serve

to camouflage this fact. In Lobstermania, when the spin

button is pressed the spin wager is subtracted from the

running total, and animated reels begin ‘spinning’. As

the reels spin the machine plays excerpts from the song

‘Rock Lobster’ by the B52s. On losing spins, the reels stop

and the machine goes into a state of quiet, awaiting the

next spin. This state of quiet is markedly different from the

feedback associated with ‘winning’ spins, where a line

joins the winning symbols and indicates on which line

the winning symbols occurred (the three clams in Fig. 1).

If one wins on more than one line, initially all the

winning symbols are outlined followed by the sequential

flashing of one winning line after another. At the same

time, the digits in the ‘win’ box count up the win. The

higher-paying symbols play specific sounds (the lighthouse plays the sound of a foghorn, etc.). Following these

sounds, one hears a chiming sound (in game parlance a

‘rolling sound’) accompanying the counting-up of the

win. For larger wins, the rolling sounds merge into a

bouncy fetching winning song whose length is tied to the

size of the win. For LDWs, as the payout is smaller, the

rolling sound duration and the time it takes the digits in

the ‘win’ box to count up is shorter. Also, one is more

likely to hear the unique sounds of the higher-paying

symbols and see more symbols outlined following wins

Table 1 Using the 259 440 000 possible outcomes of Lobstermania, Table 1 shows the percentage of spins on which there is a

regular win (amount gained wager), losses disguised as wins

(LDWs) (amount gained < wager) or loss (gains of zero) as a

function of the number of lines wagered. On some spins the

regular win or LDW includes gains on multiple lines. For

example, the player wagering on two lines may have regular

wins on both lines.

Lines wagered Regular wins LDWs Losses

1 5.1% 0.0% 94.9%

2 8.6% 0.0% 91.4%

3 8.1% 3.8% 88.1%

4 10.0% 4.9% 85.0%

5 11.9% 6.0% 82.1%

6 8.7% 10.7% 80.6%

7 10.0% 10.9% 79.1%

8 11.1% 12.4% 76.5%

9 12.2% 13.7% 74.1%

10 13.3% 13.8% 72.9%

11 11.1% 17.1% 71.8%

12 12.1% 17.3% 70.7%

13 12.9% 17.6% 69.5%

14 13.9% 17.7% 68.4%

15 14.2% 18.4% 67.4%

2 Mike J. Dixon et al.

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction
than following LDWs. For both wins and LDWs, however,

the nature of the feedback is categorically similar; one

always sees ‘winning’ symbols outlined, one always sees

digits counting up in the ‘win box’ and one always hears

the rolling sound as the win is counted up. Regular losses,

by contrast, are categorically different from wins and

LDWs in that no positive feedback occurs. It is this categorical similarity between wins and LDWs that led us to

predict similar arousal responses for these outcomes.

Arousal has long been recognized as a rewarding

property of playing slot machines [1]. Indeed, Brown [2]

cites arousal as the major reinforcer of regular gambling

behaviour. During slot machine play our heart rate (HR)

may increase and our palms begin to sweat, elevating our

skin conductance level (SCL). These bodily reactions indicate how arousing gambling can be for players with gambling problems [3]. Arousal patterns may depend upon

wins and losses. Researchers [4,5] have documented substantial heart-rate increases for players who won playing

slots, compared to negligible changes for those who lost.

In all these studies, researchers measured tonic psychophysiological arousal—changes measured over 2 or 3

minutes’ duration. In real slot machine play, gamblers

spin about once every 3–6 seconds and either lose or win

on each spin. Researchers have yet to show phasic, eventrelated psychophysical changes accompanying winning

spins, and compare these changes to losing spins. More

importantly, by measuring phasic responses, we can

directly compare reactions to wins, losses and LDWs.

Event-related phasic heart-rate changes are measured

typically by comparing the inter-beat intervals (IBIs)

prior to a stimulus presentation to the IBIs following the

stimulus presentation. Heart-rate deceleration follows

exposure to infrequent stimuli. This response has been

interpreted as an orientating response [6]. Researchers

[7,8] have suggested that such heart-rate deceleration is

related to the ‘intake’ of environmental stimuli. Because

wins and LDWs are infrequent, they should be accompanied by an orientating response. Because visual and auditory events are tied to the size of the win we predicted that

heart-rate deceleration would be largest for a real win,

next largest for an LDW and smallest for a loss.

Event-related skin conductance responses (SCRs) are

related directly to the sympathetic nervous system activity that leads to arousal [9]. When brain areas process

stimuli that have emotional significance, SCRs are elicited

[10]. Skin conductance increases directly with reports of

increasing arousal [11]. Based on the contrast between

the visual and auditory ‘quiet’ following a losing spin,

with the myriad of visual and auditory reinforcers following either a win or an LDW, we predicted that gamblers’

SCRs would be larger for wins and LDWs than for losses.

METHODS

Participants

Forty-six students were recruited from the University of

Waterloo (29 females). Ages ranged from 19 to 30 years.

Participants were free from any gambling problems;

Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI) scores were all

either 0 (n = 40) or 1 (n = 6) out of a possible 27. Participants were recruited from a pool of undergraduates.

Novice status was verified based on answering ‘zero’ to

the CPGI question: ‘In the past 12 months, how often did

you bet or spend money on slot machines in a casino?’.

Apparatus

IBIs and SCRs were acquired using an eight-channel,

ADinstruments Powerlab (model 8/30; Powerlab,

Colorado Springs, CO, USA). The Powerlab system amplified the signal from three reusable clamp-on electrodes

Figure 1 Video display of Lucky Larry’s

Lobstermania showing a loss disguised as a

win

Losses disguised as wins 3

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction
(with gel added) that were attached to the left and right

biceps, and the left wrist (ground). SCRs were recorded

using non-gelled electrodes attached to the upper phalanges of the left middle and index fingers. The wiring of

a Lobstermania machine was altered so that we could

time-lock machine events (commencement of feedback)

to participants’ IBIs and SCRs.

Procedure

After obtaining consent, participants were fitted with the

SCR and heart-rate electrodes and given a tutorial on

Lobstermania. Participants were instructed to (‘max bet’)

wager on 15 lines, with five credits per line, for a total

wager of 75 credits per spin. They were instructed that

each credit was worth 5 cents, so their spin wager would

be $3.75. Having participants use the ‘max bet’ ensured

a high percentage of LDWs (because they were wagering

on 15 lines), and ensured that wagers were held constant

to equate bet sizes across participants and conditions.

Participants were told that to gain credits they needed to

gain three or more of the same symbols (going from left to

right) on any of the 15 lines. They were shown the total

bet box, and told that the ‘win’ box displayed the amount

gained per spin, in credits. It was emphasized that this

amount was in credits and not dollars. They were also

told that they could see their running total, in dollars, in

the leftmost box.

Participants were given $200 dollars to insert into the

machine and told that they would be paid $10 for participating, but could win up to an additional $20 depending

on how well they did on the slot machine during their two

15-minute sessions. They were told to keep their left hand

still and to move their right hand only as required to push

the ‘max bet’ spin button. When the machine is waiting

for a player to spin, a ‘repeat bet’ button flashes on and off.

Participants were told to spin and wait ‘three flashes’

(about 6 seconds) after the outcome before spinning

again. Participants played for 15 minutes followed by a

break followed by a further 15 minutes of play. They were

then debriefed and paid.

RESULTS

Players spun on average 138.2 times (range = 106–181).

On average players won on 15.6% of spins (range = 7.5–

21.1%), had LDWs on 17.1% of spins (range = 11.5–

24%) and lost on 67.3% of their spins (range = 60–74%).

Entries into the ‘bonus’ mode were not analysed.

Inter-beat intervals

Of the 46 participants, six had to be removed because

of difficulties in signal acquisition and one because of

excessive movements. A low-pass filter was applied to the

heart-beat trains of the remaining participants to remove

clusters of movement artefacts, then artefacts were

detected using the default settings of the Heart Rate Variability module of Chart version 7.0, an ADinstruments

analysis program. Statistically defined artefacts were

removed, and missing R-waves replaced using interpolation. R-waves were then labelled and inter-beat intervals

were calculated.

For every participant, slightly different numbers of

wins, LDWs and losses occurred. For each win, LDW and

loss, nine IBIs were analysed: two while the reels were

spinning (IBIs -2 and -1 in Fig. 2); one while the

outcome delivery was initiated (the outcome delivery

arrow in Fig. 2) and six as the outcomes unfolded. For

every participant these values were averaged to yield nine

IBIs for wins, nine IBIs for LDWs and nine IBIs for losses.

Prior to calculating these averages, the raw IBIs were subjected to an outlier removal procedure advocated by Van

Selst & Jolicoeur [12] in which the criterion for removal

was weighted by the number of observations (this was

necessary because regular losses far outnumbered either

wins or LDWs). Figure 2 shows the (outlier free) average

IBIs for the 39 participants’ wins, LDWs and losses. An

IBI [9] by condition (wins, LDWs, losses) analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant interaction between

IBI and condition F(16, 608) = 2.739, P < 0.02, h2 = 0.067,

with a Greenhouse–Geisser correction for sphericity.

Simple main effects of condition calculated at each IBI

revealed a significant effect of condition only at IBI 2,

F(2, 76) = 6.409, P < 0.01 h2 = 0.144. Figure 2 shows that

heart-rate deceleration was greatest shortly after seeing

and hearing the sights and sounds of a real win, relative

to either LDWs or losses.

Figure 2 Mean inter-beat intervals (IBIs) before (-2, -1) at the

beginning of outcome delivery (IBI 0) and during outcome evaluation

(IBIs 1–6). LDWs: losses disguised as wins

4 Mike J. Dixon et al.

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction
Skin conductance responses

Of the 46 participants, six had to be removed (one

because of excessive movement, one because of a skin

problem that precluded recording, four because they had

no meaningful SCRs in one of the outcome conditions).

For the remaining 40 participants individual SCR amplitudes were calculated following each win, each LDW and

each loss. Amplitudes were calculated using a 3-second

window, beginning 1 second after the spin outcome delivery. SCR amplitudes were the difference between the SCR

value at the beginning of the window, and the maximum

SCR value within the window. Following Dawson et al.

[10], only meaningful SCRs were analysed (predefined as

being 0.045 microsiemens).

The SCRs of each individual’s wins, LDWs and losses

were subjected to the observation-weighted outlier trimming procedure [12]. Following trimming, for each participant average SCR amplitudes were calculated for wins,

LDWs and losses (each participant had three SCR values).

As recommended by Dawson et al. [10], a square root

transformation was applied to the SCR data to reduce the

skewness of the SCR distribution. Figure 3 shows the

average SCRs for wins, LDWs and losses for the 40 participants. An ANOVA showed a main effect of wins, LDWs

and losses on SCRs F(2, 78) = 3.31, P < 0.05, h2 = 0.078.

Post-hoc analyses showed that although wins and LDWs

were not significantly different from one another, both

had significantly higher SCRs than losses (both P-values

<0.04). One participant was an outlier in all three

conditions—removing this participant only strengthened

the results F(2, 76) = 4.71, P < 0.02, h2 = 0.11 (post-hoc

P-values < 0.02).

DISCUSSION

In terms of ecological validity, although participants

played an actual slot machine, they were given money to

gamble with. This is clearly not the same as gambling

with their own money and is an ethically unavoidable

limitation of this study. Despite this drawback, participants still displayed different psychophysical reactions to

wins, LDWs and losses.

Orientating responses and their accompanying heartrate decelerations are elicited by infrequent stimuli. In

slots games such as Lobstermania, losses are the most

frequent outcome (67.3% of all outcomes in our version).

By contrast, wins (15.5%) and LDWs (17.1%) were relatively infrequent. One might expect, therefore, that both

wins and LDWs would have shown greater heart-rate

decelerations than losses. This was not the case—only the

real wins showed preferential heart-rate deceleration.

Orientating responses have been linked to the intake of

perceptual stimuli. For real wins the number of perceptual events is greater than for LDWs in both the visual

and auditory domain. On average, more symbols become

outlined on real wins than on LDWs. Finally, one is far

more likely to hear the infrequent, unique sounds of the

higher-paying symbols when they experience a real win

than an LDW. Because more visual events followed wins

than LDWs, and more unique sounds followed wins than

LDWs, it makes sense that real wins led to the greatest

heart-rate deceleration.

SCRs are triggered by the sympathetic nervous system

and are correlated highly with subjective reports of

arousal [11]. Our results show that gamblers become

equivalently aroused following a win or an LDW, but were

less aroused following a loss. Participants’ SCRs appear to

be sensitive to the absence of positive reinforcement following losses, compared to the plethora of flashing sights

and rolling sounds that accompany credit gains on wins

and LDWs. In terms of participants’ somatic, sympathetically mediated responses, LDWs are treated as a win

rather than a loss.

Somatic markers indexed by SCRs have been implicated in complex decision-making [13]. In the context of

slot machines and LDWs, we suggest that if it looks and

sounds like a win, it will feel somatically like a win and if

it feels like a win, it will be interpreted as a win. Thus, the

somatic responses to LDWs may make it hard for gamblers to realize that they are in fact losses.

According to Schull [14], game designers are aware of

the potential impact of LDWs on players. In an excerpt

from interviews with game designers she cites ‘ “The perception”, Randy Adams of Anchor Gaming told me, “is

Figure 3 Mean skin conductance response amplitudes (square

root of skin conductance response) as a function of wins, losses

disguised as wins (LDWs) and losses (bars represent 95% confidence intervals for repeated measures designs)

Losses disguised as wins 5

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction
that you’re winning all the time, when you’re really

not— you’re putting 25 in and winning 15 back, 45 in

and 30 back, over and over”. Nathan Leland of Silicon

Gaming put it this way: “Positive reinforcement hides

loss” ’.

Playing multiple lines essentially amalgamates multiple bets into a single event. It takes (on average) far fewer

spins to encounter reinforcement when playing multiple

lines than a single line [15]. As shown in Table 1, when

playing multiple lines many of these reinforcements

occur following LDWs and thus these reinforcements are

one way to ensure that ‘positive reinforcement hides loss’

[14].

CONCLUSIONS

Gambling researchers [4,5] have shown that winning at

gambling is more arousing than losing, and that problem

gamblers show higher arousal than non-problem gamblers. Brown [2] suggests that arousal is the most important reinforcer in frequent gambling behaviour. Because

LDWs are as arousing as wins, it follows that games with

a high proportion of LDWs will be more arousing than

traditional games. If arousal is the key reinforcer in highfrequency gambling, and LDWs are as arousing as real

wins, it suggests that games with many LDWs may be the

game of choice for problem gamblers, as they provide

more of the reinforcement that they crave. At this stage,

as we only tested novice gamblers, the link between LDWs

and problem gambling is based upon argument rather

than data. That said, all problem gamblers were novices

at one time, and the pattern of arousal reactions of

novices to real wins, losses and LDWs suggests that

despite being losses, LDWs engender the reinforcing

arousal that is a key factor in the development of problem

gambling.

Game designers indicate that they use positive reinforcement to hide loss [14]. One way that positive reinforcement may hide loss is through arousal—equally

arousing outcomes (wins and LDWs) may be lumped mistakenly into the same category. Importantly, even when

one recognizes that LDWs are really just a loss in disguise,

if arousal itself is what is positively reinforcing one may

still find slots games with LDWs more enjoyable (if one is

a non-problem gambler), or potentially more addictive if

one is a problem gambler. In the sage words of an elderly

gentleman who learned the hard way about the allure of

LDWs, ‘I eventually realized that if I kept on winning, I

was going to go broke’. This study provides the first objective evidence that the arousal generated by LDWs is

equivalent to the arousal generated by wins, and highlights one means by which positive reinforcement

may potentially hide loss from the gambler who plays

multi-line slots.

Declarations of interest

Funding for this research was from the Ontario Problem

Gambling Research Centre and the Natural Sciences and

Engineering Research Council both to the first author.

There are no contractual constraints on publishing constraints for either of these agencies.

References

1. Raylu N., Oei T. P. S. Pathological gambling: a comprehensive review. Clin Psychol Rev 2002; 22: 1009–2061.

2. Brown R. I. F. Arousal and sensation-seeking components of

gambling and gambling addictions. Int J Addict 1986; 21:

1001–16.

3. Anderson G., Brown R. I. F. Real and laboratory gambling,

sensation seeking and arousal. Br J Psychol 1984; 75: 401–

10.

4. Coventry K. R., Hudson J. Gender differences, physiological

arousal and the role of winning in fruit machine gamblers.

Addiction 2001; 96: 871–9.

5. Moodie C., Finnigan F. A comparison of the autonomic

arousal of frequent, infrequent and non-gamblers

while playing fruit machines. Addiction 2005; 100: 51–

9.

6. Vand der Molen M. W., Bashore T. R., Halliday R., Callaway

E. Chrono-psychophysiology: mental chronometry augmented with psychophysiological time markers. In: Jennings J. R., Coles M. G. H., editors. Handbook of Cognitive

Psychopyhysiology: Central and Autonomic Nervous System

Approaches. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1991, p. 9–178.

7. Lacey B., Lacey J. I. Cognitive modulation of time-dependent

primary bradycardia. Psychophysiology 1980; 29: 369–83.

8. Andreassi J. L. Psychophysiology: Human Behaviour and

Physical Response, 4th edn. London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates; 2000.

9. Wallin B. G. Sympathetic nerve activity underlying electrodermal and cardiovascular reaction in man. Psychophysiology 1981; 18: 470–6.

10. Dawson M. E., Schell A. M., Filion D. L. The electrodermal

system. In: Cacioppo J. T., Tassinary L. G., Berntson G. G.,

editors. Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2nd edn. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press; 2000, p. 200–23.

11. Lang P. J., Greenwald M. K., Bradley M. M., Hamm A. O.

Looking at pictures: affective, visceral, and behavioural

reactions. Psychophysiology 1993; 30: 261–173.

12. Van Selst M., Jolicoeur P. A solution to the effect of sample

size on outlier elimination. Q J Exp Psychol A 1994; 47:

631–50.

13. Bechara A., Damásio A. R., Damásio H., Anderson S. W.

Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to

human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 1994; 50: 7–15.

14. Schull N. D. Digital gambling: the coincidence of desire and

design. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2005; 597: 65–81.

15. Haw J. Random-ratio schedules of reinforcement: the role of

early wins and unreinforced trials. J Gambl Stud 2008; 21:

56–67.

6 Mike J. Dixon et al.

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction
Exhibit 

3
8/15/13 Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts - WSJ.com

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578607903673679448.html 1/7

Subscribe Log In U.S. EDITION Saturday, August 3, 2013 As of 7:43 AM EDT

Stock Quotes Comments (69) MORE IN US »

Available to WSJ.com Subscribers

U.S. NEWS Updated August 3, 2013, 7:43 a.m. ET

Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts

Computerized models can spot and w arn people w ith high risk profiles similar to the w ay

geneticists have invented tests to predict cancer risk

Seib & Wessel Politics & Policy Washington Wire Econom y Health Law Rollout WSJ/NBC New s Poll Journal Report Colum ns & Blogs

Home World U.S. Business Tech Markets Market Data Your Money Opinion Life & Culture N.Y. Real Estate Management

Egypt Braces as

Brotherhood Vows

Rallies

1 of 12

Stocks, Bonds Sink

Amid Fed Fears

2 of 12

The Priebus

Ultimatum

3 of 12 4 of 12

Many Health

Insurers to Limit

Choices of Doctors,

Hospitals

Article

One Small Step for

Euro Zone

Americans Step Up Borrowing

Ohio's Kasich Seeks

a Softer GOP

Chinese Banks Feel

Strains After Long

Credit Binge

TOP STORIES IN WSJ

By ALEXANDRA BERZON and MARK MAREMONT

For most of her life, Kim McGuinness was no more than a casual gambler, taking

occasional trips with her husband to Atlantic City. But after he died, Ms. McGuinness

says her pattern changed dramatically. Suddenly, she was hitting the slot machines

hard, often betting through the night.

"I was lonely," says the 56-year-old New Yorker, who says in two years she gambled

away more than $1 million, losing all of her husband's life insurance and most of their

401(k) funds.

That was two years ago. And the last place Ms. McGuinness, who is also being sued

for past gambling debts, says she would have turned for help would have been the

casinos. She says they only encouraged her betting. But now, researchers believe

that the very data casinos used to track her—and many customers'—betting habits

can be used as a tool to reduce the intractable problem of gambling addiction.

Carl Kiilsgaard for The Wall Street Journal

Kitty Martz says she lost $200,000 gambling in Australia.

Email Print

News, Quotes, Companies, Videos SEARCH
8/15/13 Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts - WSJ.com

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578607903673679448.html 2/7

What's This?

More in US

Obama Condemns Violence, Cancels Military Exercise

Ohio's Kasich Seeks a Softer GOP

Americans Step Up Borrowing

U.S. Jobless Claims at Pre-Recession Level

Inflation, up 0.2%, Moves Closer to Fed Target

Popular Now

Opinion: The

P r iebus

Ultimatum

Opinion: Daniel

Henninger : The

Soft-on-Secur ity

I ssue...

W hen a New Job

L eads to a L aw suit

Egypt Br aces as

Br other hood Vow s

Rallies

Show 5 More

Warren Buffett Confesses

Warren Buffetts Shocking Confession Will Change your Investing

Strategy

www.MarketTrendSignal.com

New Rule in ALABAMA:

(AUG 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Better Read This...

www.ConsumerFinanceDaily.com

The End Of Obama?

This looming scandal could ruin the 44th President and disrupt

the...

StansberryResearch.com

Many Health

I nsur er s to L imit

Choices of Doctor s,

Hospitals

1

2

3

4

5

Alexandra Berzon and WSJ's Hank

Weisbecker look at news way to identify

problem gamblers

00:00 |

04:46

Audio

Similar to the way geneticists have invented tests to predict cancer risk, a group of

addiction scientists and industry consultants say they can use casino customertracking information to create computerized models that can spot and warn people

with high risk profiles. The new research essentially turns the industry's own data,

often used in connection with loyalty cards to identify and pamper the best customers,

on its head.

Early forms of the systems already have been employed by some government-run

casinos outside the U.S. and by some online-betting firms. The models vary, but in

general they look for risky betting patterns such as intensive play over long periods,

significant shifts in behavior, or chasing losses—betting more heavily in an attempt to

recoup prior losses. Depending on the system, flagged gamblers may be given

education tools or a detailed analysis of their behavior, or in rare cases be barred from

playing.

Casino executives so far have generally

resisted the science, which raises a

host of fresh moral, political and legal

issues at a time when the opportunity to

gamble, through online betting and new

casinos, is only growing. They argue no

one can predict a gambling addiction,

and that they can't be held liable for such

behavior in any case.

"I think it's a terrible idea," says Gary

Loveman, chief executive at Caesars

Entertainment Corp. CZR -2.14% and a

former Harvard Business School professor, who pioneered casino data mining for

marketing purposes. "Is it McDonald's obligation to decide you have a problem

because you have a tendency to eat high-calorie lunches? You could take this to

ridiculous extremes."

Although most people can gamble without becoming addicted, an estimated six

million to eight million adults in the U.S. alone have a gambling problem, according to

the National Council on Problem Gambling, an umbrella organization for state

gambling addiction groups. In its most extreme form, excessive gambling is

recognized as a behavioral addiction by the American Psychiatric Association.

In the past, the traditional method for

diagnosing gambling addiction relied on

individuals answering questions about

their emotional dependence on gambling

and its effect on their finances and

relationships. Now, some researchers

say that while no behavioral-tracking

system can formally diagnose anyone

with a disorder, it can strongly suggest who is at risk.

Much of the latest research was presented recently at a conference on gambling and

risk taking at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. There, with slot machines ringing a floor

below, Sarah Nelson, a Harvard Medical School professor, described a mathematical

algorithm based on several variables, including how often someone bets and the size

of the wagers.

"We're calling this the Sports Bettor Algorithm 1.1," she said, pointing to a screen with

a complex equation eight years in the making. "Risk Level = .134*LNfreq +

0.793*LNbpd" was how it started.

For the casinos, one risk from these algorithms is that the findings may indicate that

many of their most lucrative customers have potential gambling problems, and that

the industry can readily identify them. Casino officials say neither is the case, but

Enlarge Image
8/15/13 Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts - WSJ.com

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578607903673679448.html 3/7

some studies based on survey questions by gambling researchers have estimated

that between 25% and 50% of casino revenue can come from problem gamblers.

In one recent Harvard study, researchers found that people who triggered a

"responsible gaming alert" at one large online site lost between eight and 12 times as

much money on average as those in a control group. An Australian government

commission said in 2010 that just 2.3% of loyalty-card holders at one gambling club

produced 76% of holders' slot-machine losses, and estimated that 41% of all slotmachine losses in Australia come from problem gamblers.

So far, U.S. courts consistently have rejected

arguments that casinos are liable for the

behavior of addicted patrons. But some

attorneys trying to take on gambling

companies say that if behavioral tracking truly

can identify potential problem gamblers, the

legal tide could turn, similar to the way bar

owners have been found partly at fault for

serving visibly intoxicated patrons who cause

drunken-driving accidents.

"It would be a theory of negligence, the duty of

care argument," says Richard Daynard, a

Northeastern University law professor who is

advising some lawyers on possible litigation

against casinos.

For their part, casinos have tried to address

gambling addiction by devoting millions of

dollars to fund various research projects. Many

have instituted limited efforts to address the

issue on their properties, including looking for

outward signs of distress and allowing patrons

to ask the casino to bar them.

At the same time, casinos have developed

detailed behavioral profiles of many of their

customers, based in part on information

gathered though loyalty-card programs that

can track slot-machine play and much nongambling casino activity. The casinos use this information to tailor marketing

offerings, particularly to the small minority who make up the bulk of their revenue

base. They say none of the information can spot a problem gambler, since some of

the heavy bettors and consistent losers may simply be wealthy and enjoy the thrill of

wagering.

"You're talking about trying to diagnose a mental health disorder," says Alan Feldman,

a spokesman for MGM Resorts International. "I don't know too many nonprofessionals

who are trained to do that offhand." Jan Jones Blackhurst, a Caesars spokeswoman,

says that while some of the new science may be helpful, claims that troubled

gamblers can be identified from their play are "hogwash."

The skepticism is shared by some researchers, who question the science behind

some of the models, and by some former problem gamblers. Kitty Martz, a 44-yearold recovering gambling addict with an M.B.A. from Cornell University, says real-time

information might be a wake-up call, but would likely be only a "Band-Aid" for many

addicts.

Ms. Martz says she lost more than $200,000 in five years after she and her husband

moved to Australia, where she discovered that gambling machines, known as

"pokies," are ubiquitous. Her husband, from whom she had tried to hide her addiction,

ultimately asked for divorce, she says.
8/15/13 Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts - WSJ.com

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578607903673679448.html 4/7

"Our own partners, husbands, children and parents can't do anything to impact us to

get away from the machines," she says. "It's not due to lack of feedback that

compulsive gamblers continue to gamble."

For her part, Ms. McGuinness says a little bit of knowledge could have gone a long

way. Following her husband's death in 2007, she says she was in deep mourning,

and two years later lost her job during the recession. During sporadic trips she took

with friends to Atlantic City, she began to gamble more heavily.

Employees at Harrah's and Showboat casinos, both owned by Caesars, responded

swiftly to the change in behavior, she says. As is common among heavy gamblers,

Ms. McGuinness was given a casino-employed host who kept careful track of her

gambling, knew her personal details and cajoled her into gambling more, she says.

Her credit limit was raised to more than $100,000 and a casino-hired limo picked her

up most weekends from her Manhattan apartment.

"I feel like there was a target on my back," says Ms. McGuinness, who is being sued

by Caesars for $77,000 in past debts. She's disputing the matter; Ms. Jones

Blackhurst of Caesars confirmed that Ms. McGuinness lost large sums, but says she

"never gave any indication she had a problem."

Ms. McGuiness recalls increasing her frequency of betting, sometimes playing

through the night, as well as getting more credit to gamble after losing and betting high

—$20 to $60 per slot bet. Researchers say that if her memory is correct, that is the

sort of behavior that might trigger alarms of some of the computerized warning

systems. "In her case there's a very good chance we would pick her up," says Tony

Schellinck, a Canadian marketing professor who co-founded Focal Research

Consultants Ltd, a Halifax, Nova Scotia-based firm, which claims it can detect as

many as 80% of at-risk gamblers.

Ms. McGuinness' losses were deducted from her bank account automatically,

obscuring the harm, she says. Now no longer gambling, but considering selling her

home to stay afloat, she says she believes a warning system would have helped. "I

would have been mortified and never gone back," she says, adding that at the time of

her gambling "my mind was just about making the day go faster."

The algorithms vary, but Mr. Schellinck, an early pioneer of this research, says Focal

Research now mines as many as 800 variables. He researched loyalty-card data he

acquired from casinos starting in the late 1990s, and says he found, for example, that

big spenders at risk of gambling problems more frequently have a favorite machine,

and tend not to quit when they have just a small win or small loss.

Two government-run casinos in Saskatchewan, Canada, used a Focal-based system

for seven years. When the system detected a problem, it sent an alert to casino staff

with the player's location on the floor. Staff could intervene with the gambler, with a

gentle check-in or a suggestion to watch a responsible-gambling video. The system

triggered about 2,900 such interactions in 2012 out of 70,000 active players-club

members.

Although the Saskatchewan casinos stopped using the system earlier this year, to

rely on other education tools, a New Zealand operator in July agreed to be the first to

use it in a commercial land-based casino, in return for government permission to

expand operations.

Such behavior-tracking systems may be less useful in land-based casinos, some

Our own partners, husbands, children and

parents can't do anything to impact us to get

away from the machines.

Kitty Martz

“

”
8/15/13 Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts - WSJ.com

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578607903673679448.html 5/7

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

69 Comments, add yours

MORE IN

US »

researchers say, in part because they can only use betting data from customers who

opt in to loyalty-card systems. But researchers say that a big breakthrough may come

from online gambling sites, which collect copious data on every customer, including

size of bets, time of day, and much more. Online gambling was considered illegal in

the U.S. for many years, but several states have recently passed laws allowing it.

With an algorithm system already in use in Europe, one Internet operator, 888

Holdings 888.LN -1.57% PLC, says it is likely to be the first to put one in place in the

U.S., where it is setting up operations for online gambling in Nevada and for lotteries in

Delaware. Another leading online player, Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment PLC, which

has applied to operate in Nevada and New Jersey, is also planning to roll out a variety

of interventions, including a pop-up screen that may tell gamblers how long they have

been playing. The company, based in Gibraltar, says it already is using a partial

system to counsel problem gamblers, and has been excluding about 100 players a

month out of 700,000 customers.

"There's a very strong negative business agenda attached to problem gamblers,"

says Itai Frieberger, 888's chief operator officer. "It's bad for our reputation and bad for

business." Joachim Haeusler, Bwin's responsible gaming manager, agrees, saying

the systems can create more sustainable customers. "A player who gets into trouble

is a lost customer," he says.

Skeptics say such efforts by the online industry are aimed more at fending off harsh

regulation of online gambling, as it seeks to grow, than helping to treat a social

problem. Some addiction experts are concerned that the easy access of such betting

only increases the risk of gambling addiction.

Robert Williams, a professor at Canada's University of Lethbridge who has studied

gambling harm reduction programs, believes behavior- tracking systems are

promising, but is concerned that some gambling companies adopting them aren't

serious about gambling addiction, and have little incentive to intervene with their most

lucrative customers. "A lot of it is window dressing," he says.

Mr. Williams prefers a system like Playscan, used in some European lotteries, which

allows players to voluntarily receive alerts but doesn't let gambling companies have

any role in the warnings. But along with problems getting gamblers to opt in, Playscan

and other companies like it have found that commercial operators largely aren't

interested. "I find it frustrating," said Mark Knighton, head of Playscan sales. "Casinos

know their revenues are coming from problematic gamblers."

Write to Alexandra Berzon at alexandra.berzon@wsj.com and Mark Maremont at

mark.maremont@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared August 3, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street

Journal, w ith the headline: Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts.

Email Print Order Reprints
8/15/13 Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts - WSJ.com

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578607903673679448.html 6/7

Wall Street Journal FacebookTwitter LinkedInFourSquare Google+YouTubePodcastsRSS Feed AppStore

Back to Top

Customer Serv ice

Customer Center

New! Live Help

Contact Us

WSJ Weekend

Contact Directory

Corrections

Policy

Privacy Policy

Data Policy

Copyright Policy

Subscriber Agreement

& Terms of Use

Your Ad Choices

Adv ertise

Advertise

Place a Classified Ad

Sell Your Home

Sell Your Business

Commercial Real Estate Ads

Recruitment & Career Ads

Franchising

Advertise Locally

Tools & Features

Apps

Newsletters and Alerts

Graphics & Photos

Columns

Topics

Guides

Portfolio

Old Portfolio

More

Register for Free

Reprints

Content Partnerships

Conferences

SafeHouse

Mobile Site

News Archive

Editors' Picks

Subscribe / Login

In t r odu ci n g t h e

Ol i n gu i t o

Seen T h i s? T h e R i se of

t h e R eca p W r i t er

Fi r st Hi r es a t Fa m ou s

St a r t u ps Look Ba ck

Bl i n d A dv en t u r er

T r a i n s Sol di er s for Sou t h

Pol e R a ce

T h e Bi g In t er v i ew:

R a n d Pa u l on Mi l i t a r y

A i d t o Egy pt

Com m unity rules

Add a Comment JOURNAL COMMUNITY

Track replies to my comment

Warren Buffett Confesses

Warren Buffetts Shocking Confession Will Change your Investing Strategy

www.MarketTrendSignal.com

This Stock Will Explode

You Need to Know About this Next Awesome Penny Stock! Read More.

www.PennyStockCircle.com

stock market news

Click Here for Oil & Energy's News On the Gold Stock Market!

OilandEnergy.com/Gold

How To Win Mega Millions

Professor Reveals How To Win Mega Millions 2 Times In A Row.

www.winning-numbers.us/c3.2

View All Comments (69)

To add a comment please

Log in Create an Account

Your real name is required

for commenting.

CLEAR POST
8/15/13 Researchers Bet Casino Data Can Identify Gambling Addicts - WSJ.com

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578607903673679448.html 7/7

Jobs at WSJ Copyright ©2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Exhibit 

4