Introduction

Abstract

Gambling is, by any means, a most paradoxical activity. Even though it should be evident that the gambling industry makes its living only on its patrons’ money, persistent gamblers continue playing in the vain hope of beating the odds that are stacked against them. In fact, Wagenaar (1988) noted that it is actually the most habitual gamblers (those who should know best) who are the least likely to stop gambling. Even gambling legislation does not fall short of paradoxes. An example is offered by the Gambling Act 20051 of the United Kingdom, enacted for “protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling” (section 1 c). Section 46 (1) accordingly specifies that “[a] person commits an offence if he invites, causes or permits a child or young person to gamble”. But right in the next subsection of section 46, nine general exceptions are made, including gambling with certain types of fruit machines (better known as slot machines outside the United Kingdom), participation in lotteries and football pools. Thus, in the United Kingdom there is no general legal age limit on fruit machine playing, an activity that is unanimously considered to be highly addictive by scholars (e.g. Griffiths, 1993; Holtgraves, 2009).