"Minnesota slots": An observational study of pull tab gambling.

"Minnesota Slots": An Observational Study of Pull Tab Gambling Mikal J. Aasved, Ph.D. James M. Schaefer, Ph.D.

University of Minnesota Centerfor Addiction Studies, Duluth

A study of pull tab gambling in M i n n e s o t a was u n d e r t a k e n to describe the state's most popular form of gambling. T h e study also focused on the detection of any abuses or addictive problems that might be associated with it. Pull tab gambling is similar to slot machine gambling. T h e game, fundamentals of play, and some of the behaviors of pull tab gamblers are described. Various playing patterns and strategies, pull tab etiquette, the n u m b e r s and types of players, amounts of money bet, player's wins and losses, house profits, gambling abuses, behaviors which may indicate problem gambling, and dealer/player relationships are discussed. T h e study concludes with suggestions to help minimize some of the actual and potential problems and abuses that accompany pull tab gambling.

INTRODUCTION

Why should social scientists study gambling behavior? Until fairly recently, many social scientists had failed to regard gambling as a normative, recreational behavior worthy of empirical study. Instead, with

This study was supported by funding from the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Mental Health Division. The information presented here is based on a report (Schaefer & Aasved, 1990) submitted to that agency. Send reprint requests to Dr. Mikal J. Aasved, University of Minnesota Center for Addiction Studies, 232 School of Medicine, 10 University Drive, Duluth, Minnesota 55812, USA. The authors would like to thank Drs. Sue Fisher and Mark Griffiths for their helpful suggestions and comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Journal of Gambling Studies Vol. 11(3), Fall 1995 9 1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

311

312

JOURNAL OF GAMBLING STUDIES

relatively few exceptions (e.g., Herman, 1967; Newman, 1968), sociologists initially tended to view gambling as a form of deviant social behavior largely confined to urban society's lower classes and marginal subgroups and treated it as a major social problem along with prostitution, alcoholism, drug abuse, and poverty (e.g., Bloch, 1951; Devereux, 1949, Goffman, 1963, 1967; Merton, 1938; Zola, 1963). After reviewing much of this early work and finding little empirical support for such speculative ideas, one critic concluded that "Sociologists have neglected gambling as an activity that merits investigation in its own right" (Frey, 1984, p. 108). Another remarked that "gambling behavior [is] an extremely influential but sorely neglected scholarly concern . . . . Its deserved place in sociological and ethnographic studies of face-to-face interaction, communication, and subcultural work and life-styles has scarcely been touched" (Hayano, 1982, p. 152). Interest in ethnographic studies of normative gambling activities has grown !n recent years (e.g., Browne, 1989; Fisher, 1993; Griffiths, 1991; Hayano, 1982; Lesieur & Sheley, 1987; Rosecrance, 1986) but because social scientists tended to avoid such studies for so long, and because so few studies describe the behaviors of active gamblers, a great void still exists in this area. The following descriptive account of pull tab gambling and playing behaviors in the private clubs and public bars of Minnesota is presented in an effort to continue to rectify this situation. Why study pull tab gambling? Pull tab gambling has never been studied or described. It became Minnesota's most popular form of charitable gambling when it was legalized in 1981 and its popularity has steadily grown. Bingo was legalized in 1945 as a way for religious and charitable organizations to raise money. As the constraints on charitable gambling gradually relaxed to include raffles, tipboards (a type of raffle), paddlewheel gambling (a form of roulette), and pull tabs, the public response was overwhelming. Far more money is spent for charitable gambling in Minnesota than in any other state in the nation: of the three states reporting the highest 1990 charitable gambling sales, Minnesota's gross receipts equalled those of the other two (Texas and Washington) combined (Larson, Hill, Pile, & Reckers, 1992, p. 47). Minnesota's annual charitable gambling sales increased more than tenfold from $112 million in 1985 to nearly $1.3 billion in 1990.

MIKAL J. AASVED AND JAMES M. SCHAEFER

313

When pull tab gambling was initially legalized it was restricted to private establishments such as war veterans' clubs. Sales figures soared in the mid-1980s when it was also allowed in public drinking establishments. This is reflected in a nearly fourfold increase in pull tab sales from $80 million in 1985 to $312 million in 1986. Since then their sales have made up an increasingly greater proportion of the state's total annual charitable gambling receipts. The $80 million sales figure for 1985 represents 71.4 % of all charitable gambling receipts for that year; by 1990 Minnesota's annual pull tab sales had grown to $1.14 billion or 89% of all charitable gambling sales (Bouza, 1990, p. 21; Aasved & Laundergan, 1991, p. 10). The amounts of money spent on pull tabs in Minnesota and the revenues they generate invite the serious study of this form of gambling. All charitable gambling sponsors are required to report their sales and profits for tax purposes. According to these reports, of the $1.14 billion ($261 per capita) that were spent on pull tabs in 1990, about $937.7 million (82.1%) were returned to the players as winnings while $203.9 million (17.9 %; $46.60 per capita) were lost. In that year alone pull tab gambling raised about $52.7 million in state taxes and $181 million in gross profits for the sponsoring organizations (Minnesota Department of Revenue, personal communication).

H O W TO P L A Y T H E P U L L TAB G A M E What are pull tabs? Pull tab gambling is very similar to slot machine gambling. Pull tabs are, in essence, laminated two-ply cardboard ticket versions of the electronic or arm-pulled machines: the object is to win money by getting certain symbol combinations. O n the face of every pull tab ticket are printed the name of the game, all winning symbol patterns, the prize value of each, and how many winners of each value are in that particular game. Various printed symbol combinations are concealed behind each of three to five perforated, removable flaps or tabs on the backs of the tickets. All tabs must be pulled open to see if any winning symbol patterns appear in the exposed rows and columns--hence, the name "pull tabs" (see Figure 1). Why are they so popular? Just as they do in slot machines, the winning symbol combinations of pull tabs occur randomly and in

314


Figure 1 Typical Pull Tabs

varying amounts, in a variable ratio schedule of reinforcement (Ferster & Skinner, 1957, p. 391 ff.). This reinforcement pattern is believed to constitute the most compelling reward sequence and to lie at the heart of all gambling systems (Skinner, 1953, p. 104; 1971, p. 35; 1974, p. 60). Such a pattern is illustrated in Figure 2 which depicts the sequence of wins and losses experienced by "Joe," an actual pull tab player.


315

Figure 2 '~oe's" Skinnerian P a t t e r n of

Ups and Downs

i it Im

~

~

o

B B , ,~

":. ?

-.oI )

; m r.

~

:

-150

"rlme (303= 3:03PN, etc.)

This random, unpredictable pattern, in which the very next play could be a winner, no doubt contributes to the popularity of pull tab gambling. However, unlike slot machines which have an infinite number of plays and wins, pull tab games always have fixed number of plays and wins. This allows pull tab players several ways of handicapping which slot machine players do not have. The ability of pull tab gamblers to estimate when a winner will appear adds to the game's appeal. Where are they found? Pull tabs are sold in most licensed drinking establishments such as private clubs, public bars, restaurants, lounges,

316


and night clubs where a charitable gambling sponsor rents floor space for its pull tab booth. Some small local sponsors have as few as one pull tab outlet with only one game in play while larger organizations may have hundreds of outlets, some with as many as a dozen or more different games in play at one time. Game setup. Hundreds of different pull tab games with a wide assortment of payout structures, prizes, and profit margins are available. Typical games have 2,500 to 3,000 tickets, top prizes ranging from $100 to $500, and profit margins of 15 to 30 percent. At the extremes are some with as few as 1,000 tickets per game and, at one of Minnesota's seventeen Native American casinos, one with 150,000 tickets and a top prize of $25,000. A game is set up by a dealer who takes the tickets from the delivery carton and layers or stacks them into the clear plastic or glass windowed box from which they are sold. This allows the players to estimate the number of tickets remaining in a game at any time. An advertising flyer for each game is always displayed near its box. These flyers are informational as well as promotional: they show the total number of tickets, the winning symbol combinations, the number of winning tickets and the value of each, and the payout percentage/profit margin. Playing the game. Pull tabs are purchased from a dealer for $.50, $1.00, or $2.00 per ticket, depending on the game. Play is initiated when a player "makes a buy" by asking and paying the dealer for as many tickets as he or she would like to play from a specific game. Five, ten and twenty dollar "buys" are most common. The dealer takes a handful of tickets from that game's box, counts out the n u m b e r of tickets requested and hands them to the player, then puts the money into a cash drawer identified for that particular game. The player pulls open the tabs and reads the symbols. If a winning symbol pattern appears the player is entitled to receive the prize amount from the dealer. Depending upon the size of a win, the prize is either claimed in cash or played back into the game as a new buy. For this reason small winners are popularly known as "playbacks." In sites where winners are "posted" the dealer maintains a clearly visible listing of how many unclaimed large winning tickets remain in each game. The ratio of known winners to the estimated total number of tickets remaining in each box provides one form of handicapping that is not available to slot machine players. Game structures. Games having relatively more small winning tickets ($1 to $25) but fewer big winners ($50 to $500) are said to have a


317

"good playback structure" since they provide more winning action; those with relatively fewer small winners but more large ones are said to have a "good payout structure" since they provide a greater overall monetary return to the players. Because winning ticket ratios vary, the payout rates of different games range from 70 to 85 percent. Players can determine the structure of a game by inspecting its advertising flyer or a pull tab ticket from that game. This public knowledge allows another form of handicapping which is not available to slot machine players: serious gamblers who play for a greater return on their money would prefer a game with more big winners and a greater overall return while those who like to take an occasional chance just for fun might be attracted to a game with a greater n u m b e r of playbacks and fewer, but larger, top winners. Where the money goes. If all the pull tabs in a box are sold a given percentage is returned to the players in winnings and the charity makes a predetermined profit from the percentage it retains. Since the typical payout to players is supposed to be 70 to 85 percent, the profit margin realized by the sponsoring charity should generally fall between 15 and 30 percent before expenses. Tax records show that most organizations generally report gross profits of less than 20 percent, but data obtained through three separate methods employed during this investigation reveal that actual gross profits are consistently very close to 31 percent (see "House profits" below). From its gross profits the charity pays gambling taxes and overhead costs leaving a net profit of about half the gross for charitable purposes. However, the news media have reported that some organizations have been set up as fronts only to reap charitable gambling profits and some legitimate charitable organizations have misappropriated their gambling funds (e.g., Franklin, 1991).

RESEARCH M E T H O D S General approach. Because pull tab gambling is so popular in Minnesota the state government authorized a study to describe the game, attempt to explain its popularity, determine whether any abuses might be associated with it, and propose means of preventing or minimizing any such abuses. The results were intended for use in making public policy decisions affecting the future of lawful gambling in the state. Since pull tab gambling is found only in public bars and private clubs, the investigators would be required to spend a great deal of time

318


"hanging out" in these places. Consequently, two sociocultural anthropologists with experience in addiction and barroom behavior studies were commissioned to undertake the project. Although formal field research took place from April through J u l y 1990, the researchers familiarized themselves with m a n y aspects of the game by playing, observing, and asking questions both before and after this four month period. To assure confidentiality and anonymity, pseudonyms were assigned to all players and establishments. Several research methods were employed. Sit, watch, and record method. Direct observation of pull tab play was possible in most bars and clubs. For this, one of the investigators (Aasved) positioned himself at a table or bar stool near the pull tab sale area and recorded every transaction by every player. This was easiest in bars that had a large enough volume of gambling activity to warrant the use of cash registers which allowed the observer to see and record the visible electronic displays of cash amounts that were exchanged. Elsewhere it was necessary to watch closely and count the actual amounts of money and numbers of pull tab tickets changing hands. The ratio of the number of pull tab players to the total n u m b e r of bar patrons was also recorded every half-hour. Analysis of cash register tapes. Cash register tapes listing all pull tab transactions for thirty consecutive days were obtained from the "Southside Bar." Their analysis provided a betting profile of the amounts wagered on each play or buy, the total amounts wagered per day and over a 30-day period, the daily and total numbers of plays or buys, the number and size of all wins, and the daily and total house profits and profit margins. Dealer observation. One of the investigators (Schaefer) dealt pull tabs as a volunteer in the "Counter Bar" for three months during which a detailed record was kept of thousands of pull tab transactions over 40 sample days. Observations and notes were also made of regular and heavy players, dueling players, circuit players, broke players wanting to borrow money, players who watched then bought, the compulsive play of certain players who indicated that they wanted to quit but were unable to do so, and other playing patterns which were revealed during the observation period. Participant observation. To gain first-hand knowledge and experience in pull tab gambling, the investigators themselves became "regular players" in several bars. This involved learning the language, style, and nature of different types of play. Active participation in the game


319

enabled rapport and friendly conversations with the dealers and other players during which the answers to m a n y questions were obtained. This method led to insights into the dynamics, ethics, rules, and rituals of play, and to the importance of "inside information" about different pull tab games. Interviewing dealers and players. No structured interviews were conducted. Dealers were informally asked questions concerning such matters as the intensity of play, the average number of new games started per week, the relationships they have with regular players, and whether they have ever attempted to curtail or otherwise intervene in any player's gambling. Players were informally asked such questions as their frequency of play, the most money they ever won and lost, the distances they might travel to play, whether they were "circuit players" (those who go from bar to bar to play), which game boxes were "hot" (ready to produce a winner) and which were "dead" (played out) and whether they were "up" or "down" for the day. Some dealers and players volunteered additional information when they were told the nature of the investigation. Discussions were also held with dealers and players regarding gambling problems. Considerable interest was expressed regarding what might be done ethically and legally about a problem gambler. A conveniencesample. Hundreds of pull tab gambling sites throughout Minnesota were sampled during this study. A convenience sample included many selected public bars and private clubs known to have pull tab gambling in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area and in 40 suburban communities near the Twin Cities. All pull tab sites in numerous smaller rural communities were visited. These included 76 public bars and various private and fraternal organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Eagles, and Elks clubs. Efforts were made to observe typical pull tab play during busy and slow times of the day, week, and month. Low, medium, and high volume sales sites were targeted. Efforts were also made to observe and record representative pull tab playing by men and women of all ethnic groups.

PLAYING PATTERNS

Who plays pull tabs? The proportion of active pull tab gamblers among all bar patrons observed during the study generally ranged from 11 to 16 percent. Pull tabs are popular among men and women of

320


all ages but slightly more (58 %) of all players were men. The typical male pull tab gambler is in his mid thirties although a wide age range was found: the oldest player was ninety; the youngest was two years and five months old. (The m i n i m u m legal gambling age in Minnesota is eighteen). Female pull tab players are typically in their late thirties but range in age from nineteen to ninety. No female children were observed playing pull tabs during the investigation. Pull tabs are popular among the working-classes and are most commonly found in working-class bars. Pull tabs are also sold in middle- and upper-class bars but they tend to be lower volume games with shorter periods of intensive play. Patrons of upper-class bars tend to buy the more expensive $2 tickets. How much time do pull tab players spend on this activity? The amounts of time spent on pull tab play depends on how much money one wants to spend. A typical light player ($1-$15 per day) would spend less than fifteen minutes. A group of friends may take longer since individual decisions tO play are often contingent upon the outcomes of the others. Light playing may also be incorporated into an afternoon or evening of drinking, dining, dancing, or socializing with friends. Heavy players come to a bar primarily to play pull tabs. They may spend three to six or more hours doing so depending on their social grouping and money supplies. If there are many players in a bar and the games are "fresh" or look good in terms of potential payouts, the players could extend their play over many hours. A game may also provide the players with numerous playbacks. This not only prolongs the play, but it also increases its interest and intensity. Playing with a partner or two always prolongs play since the group investment lowers any individual's single contribution. A disadvantage to group playing is that any winnings must be divided among all partners. Most pull tab gamblers are strictly solo players but some prefer to play with a partner, especially when their funds are low. Does the type of establishment make a difference? The easie/" it is for gamblers to play pull tabs, the more likely it is that they will do so. There are three basic playing environments: smaller public bars with one or two game boxes behind the bar where they are sold by the bartender; larger public bars with separate pull tab booths and more boxes in play; and private clubs which almost always have a separate pull tab booth and m a n y game boxes in play at one time. The most difficult situations from the player's perspective are in smaller rural and


321

neighborhood bars where the bartender/dealer is frequently occupied with bartending duties. Pull tab play is generally less intense in this type of environment. Access is easier and the play is greater where pull tab booths and dealers are situated away from the bar and its activities. Players have the opportunity to play directly and as often as they wish, and this environment minimizes any perception of unfairness that sometimes occurs when a bartender overlooks an eager player. It also permits freer exchange of information and fairer access: the game boxes and posting boards can be clearly seen by all and the players can form a line to buy their tickets in turns. Private clubs tend to have more women and couples playing, heavier play, and faster, more intense action than public bars. At times fully half the patrons observed in private clubs were avidly playing pull tabs. Some private clubs with the highest volumes of sales may have two or more dealers on duty at one time. Playing preferences. Two styles of play were observed among serious players who try to make money at the game. Some prefer no competition and like to dominate a particular game; they believe they will have better chances of hitting the big winners if no one is playing against them. Others prefer a busy game with more players; they believe it is less costly to distribute the many losing tickets among a group. Seven pull tab sites had five or more players constantly playing the game. Often two or more players would be lined up at the pull tab booth trying to hit a winning ticket that was "overdue." Lines of up to twenty players were seen but shorter lines are more common even in high volume sites. The players feel considerable excitement and tension during these "hot box" runs when the odds of winning are good. If the chances of winning in one bar are poor, "circuit players" will go to other bars in search of better opportunities and "hot boxes." Heavy play." '~eedingfrenzies" and "hot boxes. "Players often stay close to the pull tab booth while they buy and open their tickets. This actionrelated milling about of the players can arouse and excite the entire bar. At times it creates a "feeding frenzy" atmosphere, a period of intense play by a large group sometimes lasting for several hours until all the winning tickets are hit. "Feeding frenzies" are self-generated and selfsustaining phenomena which occur irrespective of the players' perceptions of their chances of winning. H e a v y play situations also develop when the players believe their chances of winning are good. Often a high volume of pull tab play in and of itself generates favorable playing

322


odds: since the number of pull tab tickets in a box is finite, the ratio of winning to losing tickets decreases rapidly when hundreds of tickets are opened in a few minutes time. Pull tab players say a box is "hot" when the total number of tickets left in the game is low compared to the higher number of "posted" winners remaining. U n d e r these circumstances the chances of winning are highly favorable and the "hot box" becomes the focus of a great deal of attention among both the bar's regular players and those who rarely play. When a box is "hot" the playing excitement and activity increase dramatically until the winning tickets are hit. The intensity level subsides as soon as the winners are claimed. "In between" players and "short-timers." "Hot boxes" attract so much attention that the pull tab action can become frenetic. Bar patrons who do not normally play will often take a chance by placing a small bet "in between" those of the regulars. "In between" playing is an attempt to hit a big winner with only a small investment. This betting strategy can be risky since "hot boxes" generate high levels of anxiety and tension, especially among those who are heavily invested in the game. Intense box and player watching, verbal jousting, and rapid ticket opening occur at these times. T w o incidents of physical pushing were witnessed when a heavy player missed and a "short-timer" or new player "hit." In one bar there was talk--only half in j e s t - - a b o u t one such "in between" player meeting his fate outside in the parking lot. Pull tab ethics. In heavy play situations a "pull tab ethic" develops among the players. Regular players notify each other when they "hit" a winning ticket in order to prevent others from playing a "dead" box, one that has no large winners remaining. As a consequence of this "ethic," players who do not follow this custom or worse, those who "sit" on winning tickets (fail to redeem them immediately) while the rest of the players continue to play a "dead" box, will suffer the wrath of the ethical players. As a courtesy to the dealer, winning players are expected to tear the loose tabs off of all winning tickets. Since dealers earn the minimum wage, most players give them a gratuity of 5 percent or more of the value of every big win. Most dealers place "tip jars" in plain sight for this reason. Inside information. Big tippers and personal friends of the dealer often gain an unfair advantage over other players by receiving "inside information" about the status of a game. The most reliable piece of information for handicapping a game is its "cash build-up" or the amount of money or "over bank" in its cash drawer at any given time. Since the profit margin of every game is pre-established, and since


323

every game box has its own cash drawer, the dealer is always in possession of this essential piece of information. When a game has made its profit this amount (which represents the amount to be taken to the bank) is set aside as the "bank." Any money that builds up in excess of the "bank" is money that will eventually be paid out in winnings. When a game's "cash build-up" reaches several hundred dollars "over bank," the dealer knows a big winner is overdue. Although dealers are instructed not to give out "inside information," this is a common practice. One dealer even telephoned a friend who then drove from the other side of the city to play a "hot box" that no one was playing. The player won a large sum and tipped the dealer handsomely. Some dealers will occasionally "pull" or "kill" (remove from play) a game that has a large "cash build-up" even though not all of its big winners have been claimed. This is done to increase the profit margin. Deceiving others. When a box is "hot" and heavily invested players want to reduce their competition, they may deliberately misinform others in Order to make them play from other boxes. Such practices are known as decoying or "decking." For example, they might tell or signal others that a big winner has just been hit when it has not. When an active player wants to make the next buy from a "hot box" ahead of any competitors, s/he may also "deck" the others by pretending to hit the big winner. This is done by opening a losing ticket, feigning surprise and joy then quickly tearing off the loose tabs, proudly showing it to a confederate, and otherwise acting as though the losing ticket is, in fact, a winner. When the others think that the winning ticket they have been trying to buy is no longer in the box, they will quit playing. W h e n the player approaches the booth "to cash in the winner" s/he will instead make another buy which is expected to produce the real winner. Letting the box rest. After a big winner has been hit most experienced gamblers stop playing and "let the box rest" for a while since the chances of winning have temporarily decreased. They will then watch the box closely until a certain number of losing buys have been made by others, the ticket level drops, and the chances of hitting another big winner have improved. To quit or not. Most players quit for the day if they run out of money or hit a big winner. In some instances heavy players who have lost all their money will go to an automatic teller machine, or to a friend, or to some other source for a gambling stake. Some heavy players refuse to quit when they are ahead and continue to play until they have lost their winnings. Figure 3 illustrates "Eddie's" failure to

Is

P~d

I00

100

200 '

300

400

500

Time (1430 = ~:30 PM; 1911 = 5:12 PM, etc.)

Figure 3 "Eddie's" Best Day Ever

C

C~

9 >

0

:z >.

0 C


325

quit when he was well ahead of the game. He finally quit playing while he still had half his winnings only because it was time for him to go to work.

BETTING, WINNING, AND LOSING How much do players bet? A "buy" refers to the amount of money a player spends on pull tabs each time s/he goes to the booth. A player may spend only ten or twenty dollars per buy but after making a number of buys may end up spending hundreds of dollars overall. Cash register tapes from the Southside Bar revealed that pull tab purchases are made in three main denominational amounts: five, ten, and twenty dollar buys. Figure 4 shows that of the 3,723 buys made during th!s period, the most frequent were for $10 (N = 999 or 26.8%) followed by $5 (N = 877 or 23.6%) and $20 (N = 676 or 18.2%). Since small wins of $1 to $25 are usually used to purchase more pull tabs, the high frequency of smaller buys probably represent playbacks. From a cumulative perspective nearly half of the buys were under $5 (N = 1560 or 41.9%), nearly three quarters were under $10 (N = 2710 or 72.8%), and less than 1.5% were over $50. The tapes also revealed that three $100 buys were made and that one player bought $2000 worth of pull tabs at one time. The "sit, watch, and record" method revealed only slightly different betting habits. O f the 583 total purchases recorded, $20 buys were most common (N = 153 or 26.2%) following by $10 (N = 131 or 22.5%) and $5 buys (N = 131 or 22.5%). A substantial number of small $1 $2, and $3 (N = 47) and mid-range buys of $15 and $30 (N -- 29) were made. Larger buys of $40 and $50 were made nearly as often as the mid-range buys. Buys in odd amounts such as $17 or $23 were far less common as were those of $60, $75, and $100 (N = 5). Two "buyouts" were made in which a player or group will purchase all the tickets remaining in a box: one was for $450. Cumulatively, nearly one-third of the buys were $5 or less (N -- 189 or 32%), about threefifths were $10 or less (N = 346 or 59%), and almost nine-tenths were $20 or less (N = 521 or 89%). Consequently, only slightly more than one-tenth (11%) of all buys made in these establishments were greater than $20.

4OO

S~

12~ "i

--

i I I

i%l

"~I

g

!

I~I ~I1 ~ . ~

.

.~

i

~. i

~

.

l., ~ i

Figure 4 Numbers of Pull Tab "Buys" by Dollar Amounts: Southside Bar Cash Register Tapes, 30 Consecutive Days

~ t"s't

z 0

N

o

0

>

0 C


327

Data on players' overall daily expenditures were obtained by dealer observations over a forty day period at the Counter Bar. Table i indicates that most players spent between $I and $15 for pull tabs per day: one-fourth (24%) of the players wagered very small amounts ($1 to $5) each day while just over half (51.5 %) of the players made bets of $15 or less. Daily wagers of more than $50 were made by 22% of the players. How much do players win or lose? Occasional or light players are those who make only one or two buys totaling $25 or less and then, win or

Table 1 Daily Pull Tab Purchases, Counter Bar (40 days) Dollar Amounts $

Frequency

1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-450 451-500 501-600 601-700 701-800 801-900 901-1,000 1,001-1,100 1,101-1,200

159 116 62 48 29 97 34 15 31 16 6 10 7 6 5 1 6 4

Total Purchases

655

1 1 1

Percentage 24.3% 17.7 9.5 7.3 4.4 14.8 5.2 2.3 4.7 2.4 .9 1.5 1.1 .9 .8 .15 .9 .6

.15 .15 .15

Cumulative % 24.3 % 42.0 51.5 58.8 63.2 78.0 83.2 85.5 90.2 92.7 93.6 95.1 96.2 97.1 97.9 98.0 98.9 99.5

99.7 99.9 100.0

328


lose, walk away from the game. The chances of winning anything at all fall between 1 in 9 and 1 in 14 depending on the game; the odds of hitting a $50 to $500 winner are about 1 in 200. M a n y of those observed had won nothing when they had finished playing for the d a y - - n o t even a $1 playback. The Counter Bar record for consecutive losses was $60; a woman in a veterans club spent $73 and won nothing at all. Nevertheless, light players occasionally do hit a big winner. When they do they generally keep the cash and play no more that day. Most commonly, however, light players lose the small amounts they play. During the "sit, watch, and record" observations the transactions of 140 different players were recorded. Over half(N -- 79 or $56.4%) were light players. Of this group, 95 % lost their money: 46 (58 %) won nothing at all; 29 (37%) won from $1 to $21 in but played this money back into the game and so also ended up losing; 2 others (2.5 %) cashed in their small winning tickets and left the game $14 and $15 ahead, respectively; and only 2 (2.5 %) of the 79 light players won larger sums of $175 and $475. Heavy bettors: Counter bar. Records of the wagers of eighteen heavy players at the Counter Bar were kept during the forty-day period of dealer observations. The gambling expenditures by these 13 male and 5 female players is summarized in Table 2. None of the group played every day but with one exception they all spent large amounts of money on days that they did. Since several were known to have played pull tabs in other bars before coming to the Counter Bar, or were going to play elsewhere when they left, these figures do not represent their total daily gambling expenditures. As a group they spent an average $131 per person per day for pull tabs in the Counter Bar alone. Other Counter Bar regulars who played on nine or more occasions wagered an average of $110 per day. During the study period these players received a total of $16,615 in cash winnings. It is impossible to determine how much of this was eventually played back into the game, but we believe a substantial amount of it was. Some players used their pull tab profits to pay debts and make purchases. One paid for a motorcycle out of a single week's pull tab winnings. It should be noted, however, that 16 or 89% ended up losing money. Dueling pull tabs. One day "Eddie," a Counter Bar regular and an obvious problem gambler, "quit" six times. He tapped his checking account credit limit of $200, his credit card limit, and he borrowed money from several bar patrons. O n this occasion "Eddie" was in a

MIKAL J. AASVEDAND JAMES M. SCHAEFER

329

Table 2 Major Players, Counter Bar, May-July 1990 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Tag Eddie Anne Fred Dave Joe Ski Kate Amer Frek Curl Nike Must Old Morn Bald Chad Pete Grek

Totals Profit Margin

(M) (F) (M) (M) (M) (M) (F) (M) (M) (F) (F) (M) (M) (F) (M) (M) (M) (M)

Total $

TotalNet

$4,924 3,081 2,828 2,328 1,906 1,389 1,273 870 784 668 638 625 621 608 435 399 376 297

$-1,392 -600 -507 -649 + 100 -433 -642 -655 -512 -391 -360 -53 -103 + 35 -435 -399 -142 -297

$24, 050

$-7~ 435 30. 9 %

Play~Day Net~Day Days $234 514 314 97 191 694 79 435 112 167 45 57 310 61 145 57 11 297

$ -66 -100 -56 -27 + 10 -217 -40 -328 -73 -98 -26 -5 -52 + 3.50 -145 -57 -4 -297

21 6 9 24 10 2 16 2 7 4 14 11 2 10 3 7 34 1

"duel" with "Fred." It became an ego match in which each tried to outplay the other, mostly for social status. Both players kept reinvesting their winnings and each bet over a thousand dollars in six hours. They ended up losing $338 and $90, respectively. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the early phases of this duel. Heavy play in other bars. Of the 140 players and groups observed at other bars and clubs, only 13 (9.3%) played more than $100 in amounts ranging from $110 to $787 in a single gambling session. All won and lost cash and/or playbacks while they played and all but one ended up losing by the end of the session. Of these players, the 12 unlucky losers lost amounts ranging from $42 to $350; the winner,

$$ plly~l

$,:300

$-200

$-100

$0

$2OO

Figure 5 "Eddie" Dueling with "Fred," July 4, 1990

0

0

Z

0

c._.

i

I

"el D

I

I

n

I

0

o

146 147

I mi

mm

44"~

451 153.8 454 455 456 45B 15B.5 5DO 5O2 5O9 510 ~10.5 511 H1.5 ~11.8 512 515 516 517 519 ~19.5 521 522 523 524 526 527 528 52'9 ;30.5 532 534 535 536 54O 543 544 548 549 55O 552 554 555 556 557 559 600 601 602 603 ;03.5 605 ;05.5 608 611 ' 612 ' 613 ' 615 ' 616 ' 619 620

L

mmm m m m m immm m

J

g_ ,.6

=

9

332


whose play was recorded in two different bars, won only $114 on one occasion and $139 on another. House profits. Charitable gambling organizations realize gross profits of 31% or more. The eighteen heaviest Counter Bar players wagered a total of $24,050 over the forty days of observation. Their combined losses of $7,435 represent the gross profit that the charity realized from this group. This establishes a payout rate of 69 % and a house take of 31% at the Counter Bar. During the "sit, watch, and record" periods in other bars a total of 581 cash buys amounting to $8,592 were documented. They netted 117 cash wins totaling $5,865 and 329 playbacks amounting to $2,006. The overall payout (cash plus playbacks) was therefore $7,871 or 91.6%. But because playbacks are always put back into the game, their value does not figure into the actual house profits; only cash does. Since the players' cash losses were $2,727, the overall house profits came to 31.7%. The cash register tapes from the Southside Bar revealed a very similar profit margin. Since every pull tab transaction over thirty consecutive days went into the analysis, this sample (N = 3,723 cash buys) provides the most numerically accurate picture of pull tab play. Daily sales ranged from $535 to $3,467 and totaled $41,046.50 for the entire period. Cash wins (or house payouts) ranged from $80 to $2,764 per day and totaled $28,391.50. This means that the house took in a total of $12,727, or a daily average of $424.25. While daily profits ranged from - 3 6 % to + 69 %, the overall profit margin for this thirty-day period was 31%.

B E H A V I O R A L SIGNS OF P R O B L E M G A M B L I N G

During the study it became clear that some of the heavier players were exhibiting a number of clinical symptoms of pathological gambling. According to various authorities (e.g., American Psychiatric Association, 1987; Custer, 1984; Custer & Milt, 1985; Gowan, 1986; Lesieur, 1984), pathological gamblers have lost control over their gambling: they spend much of their time gambling, being near gambling activities, and exchanging stories about wins and losses; when they are not gambling they are thinking about gambling, ways to obtain gambling money, and ways to improve their chances (developing a system). As they lose they "chase" their losses: their options for getting gambling funds narrow, they increase the size and frequency of their wagers (tolerance), and obtain money in mysterious, covert ways


333

(secret funding). They often lie to family members and themselves about the extent of their gambling and where they get the money for it (denial). For them gambling relieves stress and produces sensations of euphoria; attempting to cut down or quit causes emotional dysphoria and irritability (withdrawal). Some of the possible behavioral cues for potential and actual problem gambling that were observed among pull tab players are listed below. Those that indicate "chasing" are: 1. "The endless cycle": repeated winning and losing; experiencing large wins and large losses over an extended period of play. 2. "$20 in 5" betting: pounding away at a game; playing $20 every five minutes and rapidly opening tickets. 3. Betting after a big win: realistically, the chances of hitting big winners "back to back" are poor. 4. "Playing nickels and dimes": after spending all one's folding money, counting out loose change at the pull tab booth for one last chance. Those that indicate a concern with funding include: 5. Borrowing: attempting to obtain gambling money from others, including near strangers, after losing all one's own money. 6. "Where's the nearest ATM?": asking directions to the nearest automated teller machine after losing all of one's money. 7. Check writing: writing personal checks to the bar or attempting to do so in order to play pull tabs; this is an illegal but common practice. 8. "I'm back!": a sudden and surprising return to action by a player who had run out of money but has somehow come up with a fresh stake. Some reveal a concern with manipulating one's chances of winning: 9. "Box watching" or "hawking": spending a great deal of time watching pull tab boxes in order to calculate the best time to make a buy.

334


10. "What's hot?": rushing into a bar and demanding information about which game is most likely to produce a big winner. 11. "What's the cash build-up": requesting "inside information" from a dealer on how much money over a game's normal profit is in its cash drawer. 12. "Decking": active deception; disseminating misinformation or feigning a big win in order to gain an advantage over other players. 13. "Box talk": claiming to know when the winning tickets will come out of a fresh game or playing on someone else's presumed knowledge of this. 14. "Pull tab magic": resorting to superstitious rituals and behaviors in a n attempt to influence the outcome of one's gambling. Other behaviors suggest a more advanced gambling problem: 15. "Yesterday never happened": denial; losing a great deal of money one day and returning to play the next as though nothing had happened. 16. "Oh, well, another $150 winner": tolerance; treating big winners as casually as small winners. 17. "Can I open them for you?": vicarious gambling; players who have lost all their money may watch others closely and even ask to open their tickets. 18. "I've got to quit": expressing a conscious desire to quit gambling or to cut back on the amount spent on gambling.

Does alcohol play a role in pull tab gambling? Various theoreticians and clinical researchers have suggested that drinking, drug use, and gambling are equally addictive and often go hand in hand or m a y substitute for one another since they are presumed to meet the same needs or serve the same ends (e.g., Adler, 1966; Adler & Goleman, 1969; Blaszczynski, Buhrich, & McConaghy, 1985; Dell, Ruzicka, & Palisi, 1981; Lesieur, 1984; Lesieur & Blume, 1990; Orford, 1985; Ramirez, McCormick, Russo, & Taber, 1983; Taber, McCormick, & Ramirez, 1987). While the findings of many of these studies are based on speculation, anecdotal evidence, or small sample sizes which render their results inconclusive, other empirical studies of larger clinical


335

samples suggest the possibility of at least a limited relationship between problem gambling and alcohol or other drug abuse (Custer & Custer, 1978; Lesieur, Blume, & Zoppa, 1986). Still others have found the incidence of comorbidity to be far higher in certain ethnic groups than in the general population (Elia & Jacobs, 1993; Jacobs, 1991). Unfortunately, the nature of this relationship--whether it is causal, conditional, coincidental, or c u l t u r a l - remains a mystery. A study designed to determine the effects of alcohol on the gambling behavior of nonaddicted subjects was also unable to explain its findings that willingness to gamble increased after the administration of low doses of alcohol but decreased with high doses (Sjoberg, 1969). Consequently, nearly all of these studies concluded with recommendations for further research. Because of these findings and suggestions, and because pull tabs are sold in bars, we also looked for any possible association between alcohol use and gambling but no consistent relationship materialized. Instead, several patterns of drinking and pull tab playing were observed. The most common was social drinking and controlled g a m b l i n g - having a few beers and playing a few pull tabs. Several pull tab players drank heavily but gambled lightly, some drank lightly but gambled heavily, some drank and gambled lightly, and some drank and gambled heavily. Most, but definitely not all, of the heaviest players tended to concentrate far more of their attention on gambling than drinking. In short, our field observations alone could neither confirm nor deny the suggested relationship between gambling and alcohol use.

DEALER/PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS How well do dealers know the players? Most of the pull tab dealers interviewed, whether bartenders or booth dealers, claimed to know most of their players quite well and are on a first name basis with many of them. Those who work in booths know roughly how much money each of their regular players have won or lost but honor the code of silence about their finances. Do dealers feel concern about heavy losers? This question, which was asked of all dealers during the study, yielded a distinct response pattern. None of the bartender/dealers showed any concern at all. Some were convinced that none of their customers ever spent more on

336


gambling than they could afford and were surprised that such a question would be asked. However, when pressed, m a n y said that they were just too busy with their regular duties to pay any attention to how much money their customers were spending on pull tabs. Their responses did not, therefore, show a lack of caring so much as they did a lack of awareness of any possible gambling problems. Conversely, dealers who work in separate booths expressed far more empathy with their players. They feel elation along with the winners and emotional distress along with the losers. In nearly every bar the pull tab dealer told happy tales of lucky players who won big on a small bet but, since there are always far more losers than winners, they also told sad stories about heavy players whose gambling has cost them large sums of money and put them deeply in debt. They show greatest concern when a player has apparently lost all his or her recreational money and then dips into the grocery money, the rent money, or their personal savings to b u y more pull tabs. Some have quit dealing when they thought the game was destroying certain individuals and families: in the words of a former pull tab dealer who went back to being a cocktail waitress, "You can eighty-six a drunk but you can't cut off a gambler." Cutting off problem gamblers. M a n y dealers expressed a desire to receive some sort of training in tactful ways of cutting off heavy players and getting them to play more wisely. Some wanted to know where to refer heavy players for help with problem gambling. A few resourceful dealers have devised intervention methods of their own: some simply tell players to leave the game alone for a while; others flatly refuse to sell them any more tickets. Some politely suggest that a player might consider paying his or her bills before gambling any more. O n e uses such lines as, "Look, Honey, we've got to stop meeting like this. You're spending too much money and I don't want you to blame me when you end up in the poor house." Sometimes more subtle hints are dropped: "I sure hope your rent is paid," or "Isn't your kid's birthday coming up?" In all cases the dealers were later thanked for their advice but in all cases these few dealers were left to their own devices in their attempts to intervene. Most simply have no idea what to do about the problem gamblers they encounter and, as a consequence, do nothing. M a n y admitted that the charitable organizations they work for have shown no concern about problem gambling but most felt that since these organizations are profiting from it, they should assume at least some responsibility for doing something about it.


337

DISCUSSION Pull tab gambling is clearly a popular pastime in Minnesota. By attracting so many players it generates substantial profits for the charitable organizations that sponsor these games and tax revenues for the state. Gross profits (or player losses) of 31% or more clearly demonstrate that a lot more money goes into the game than is paid out, and whether a player is a light or heavy gambler the chances are that he or she will lose. Compared to the payout percentages of casino games in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, the odds of winning at "Minnesota Slots" are long, indeed. For these reasons, and because no similar studies have been conducted, an observational study of pull tab gambling was undertaken to assess and perhaps explain its popularity, and to describe the game and the behaviors of those who play it. Attention was also given to the detection of any observable abuses and addictive problems associated with it. Examples were documented and described. iThe study found that most pull tab players are responsible gamblers who wager no more than they can afford to lose. But not all players do lose: a number of them break even or come out slightly ahead of the game, and a few lucky players even win enviable sums of money. Like all other gambling enterprises, however, pull tabs and other forms of charitable gambling were never intended to give money to the players but to take it from them. Thus, owing to the design of the game and its predetermined payout rates, there will inevitably be far more losers than winners. Unfortunately, among this group there are a few who do not seem to be able to control their gambling and therefore play more than they should. Consequently, they also lose more money than they can afford--often all that they have. Pull tabs are very much like slot machines: their payout patterns strictly adhere to Skinnerian variable ratio reinforcement schedules in that the smaller winning tickets or "playbacks" which act as "teasers" and the larger winners which pay cash are won just often enough to keep the players coming back for more, especially since the probability of winning increases with each loss. In pull tabs, where the number of tickets in each game box is finite, a fixed number of big wins is always guaranteed to occur within a given number of plays. Consequently, even though gamblers may have an intellectual awareness that the ratio of wins to losses--the amount paid out to the amount taken i n - always favors the house, emotionally they may be afraid not to place the next

338


bet for fear of missing out on a possible big win. This would be particularly true of pull tab "feeding frenzy" and "hot box" situations in which the relatively few tickets remaining in a box are known to include one or more big winners. A randomly intermittent payout pattern and the ability of many players to handicap the games and obtain "inside information" about their readiness to pay off probably account for much of popularity of pull tab gambling. Although Skinnerian reinforcement theory may be useful in explaining "normal" slot machine and pull tab gambling behavior, its utility in accounting for pathological or problem gambling is questionable. "Normal" gamblers quit playing when they feel the odds against them are too great, but pathological gamblers do not. They will continue to play even though a big winner has just been hit and the possibilities of their winning are unfavorable and unrealistic. Most specialists therefore feel that other factors--emotional, environmental, and/or physiological are also involved but precisely which of these factors and in which combinations they may apply are unknown. Consequently, any simple "cure" for problem gambling is probably a long way off. It is therefore essential to utilize, further develop, and enlarge upon the resources that are already available for the treatment and prevention of problem gambling. Attempts should also be made to prevent any known and potential abuses associated with pull tab gambling such as misappropriation of gambling profits, "inside information," and problem gambling. Regulatory agencies might consider some of the following methods for maximizing their efforts at minimizing both problem gambling and gambling problems: 1. requiring all new dealers and gambling managers to receive training in current gambling laws and 2. in recognizing the early signs of problem gambling and acting to discourage or cut off players exhibiting these signs; 3. requiring the conspicuous display of Compulsive Gambling Hotline and/or local Gamblers Anonymous telephone numbers at all gambling sites; and 4. promoting awareness education on problem pull tab gambling and its prevention by pointing out the possible advantages and pitfalls of the game. Brochures should be made available explaining pull tab and other charitable gambling games. They should include information and advice on odds and how to playwisely aria responsibly, for example, by setting limits on

M I K A L J. A A S V E D A N D J A M E S M. S C H A E F E R

339

one's play. Awareness education might also include public service announcements by recovering compulsive gamblers warning of the potential for harmful consequences. The public should also be apprised of precisely how and where pull tab profits are spent. As with any scientific inquiry, this investigation has produced more questions than it has answered. One of the more pressing of these concerns the known and unknown abuses in the industry. For example, numerous instances of "inside information" about the status of pull tab games appear to enhance the chances of winning for some players while decreasing them for others. Can these and similar abuses be controlled? A second important question concerns the impacts, if any, that charitable gambling may be having upon other forms of charitable giving and the organizations that are dependent on them. For example, do charities which have traditionally relied on philanthropic funding but which do not sponsor charitable gambling still receive as much in donations as they did before the proliferation of pull tab gambling? A final pressing question concerns the relationship between gambling and the use of alcohol and other drugs. Although heavy gambling and alcohol use appear to be interrelated, our observations failed to reveal any consistent association between these two activities. Despite some suggestive preliminary finding s by others, this issue clearly requires more study before any definite conclusions can be drawn. Moreover, when and if a connection is firmly established, the nature of the relationship will still be open to question. To what extent, if any, does drinking influence one's gambling? Conversely, to what extent, if any, do gambling outcomes influence one's drinking? To what extent are peoples' gambling and drinking habits determined or influenced by other causes? Do these behaviors develop independently of one another from different causes or do they have a common etiology? These and other questions merit serious consideration.

REFERENCES Aasved, M. J. & Laundergan, J. C. (1991). You betcha/ Gambling and its impacts in a northern Minnesota community. Report to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Mental Health Division. Duluth, MN: University of Minnesota Center of Addiction Studies. Adler, J. (1966). Gambling, drugs, and alcohol. Issues in Criminology 2, 111-117.

340

JOURNAL

OF GAMBLING STUDIES

Adler, N. & Goleman, D. (1969). Gambling and alcoholism; Symptom substitution and functional equivalents. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 30, 733-736. American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual, third edition, revised. Washington, D.C.: Author. Blaszczynski, A. P., Buhrich, N. & McConaghy, N. (1985). Pathological gamblers, heroin addicts and controls compared on the E.P.Q. 'Addiction Scale.' British Journal of Addiction, 80, 315-319. Bloch, H. (1951). The sociology of gambling. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 215-221. Bouza, A. V. (1990). Gambling in Minnesota. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Gaming. Browne, B. (1989). Going on tilt: Frequent poker players and control. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5, 3-21. Custer, R. L. (I 98r Profile of the pathological gambler. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 45, 35-38. Custer, R. L. & Custer, L. F. (1978, December). Characteristics of the recovering compulsive gambler: A survey ofl50 members of Gamblers Anonymous. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Conference on Gambling, Reno, Nevada. Custer, R. & Milt, H. (1985). When luck runs out: Help for compulsive gamblers and theirfamilies. New York: Warner Books. Dell, L.J., Ruzicka, M. F., & Palisi, A. T. (1981). Personality and other factors associated with the gambling addiction. International Journal of the Addictions, 16, 149-156. Devereux, E. C. (1949). Gambling and the social structure: A sociological study of lotteries and horseracing in contemporaEv America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Elia, C. & Jacobs, D. F. (1993). The incidence of pathological gambling among Native Americans treated for alcohol dependence. International Journal of the Addictions, 28, 659-666. Ferster, C'. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. Fisher, S. (1993). The pull of the fruit machine: A sociological typology of young players. The Sociological Review, 41, 446-474. Franklin, R. (1991). Research group called gambling front. Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 14, pp. 1A, 8A. Frey, J. H. (1984). Gambling: A sociological review. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 474, 107-121. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Princeton University Press. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books. Gowan, W. D. (1986). Early signs of compulsive gambling. (Pamphlet). Center City, MN: Hazelden Foundation. Griffiths, M. (1991). The observational study of adolescent gambling in UK amusement arcades. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 309-320. Hayano, D. M. (1982). Pokerfaces: The life and work of professional cardplayers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Herman, R. D. (1967). Gambling as work: A sociological study of the race track. In R. Herman (Ed.) Gambling (pp. 87-104). New York: Harper & Row. Jacobs, D. F. (1991, July). Prevalence of problem gambling among hospitalized male substance abusers. Paper presented at the Fifth National Conference on Gambling Behavior, Duluth, Minnesota. Larson, M., Hill, L., Pile, D., & Reckers, S. (1992). High stakes: Gambling in Minnesota. St. Paul: Minnesota Planning Office. Lesieur, H. R. (1984). The chase: Career of the compulsive gambler. Cambridge, Mass. : Schenkman. Lesieur, H. R. & Blume, S. B. (1990). Characteristics of pathological gamblers identified among patients on a psychiatric admissions service. Hospital and Community Psychiat(y, 419, 10091012. Lesieur, H. R. & Sheley, J. F. (1987). Illegal appended enterprises: Selling the lines. Social Problems, 34, 249-260. Lesieur, H. R., Blume, S. B., & Zoppa, R. M. (1986). Alcoholism, drug abuse, and gambling. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 10, 33-38. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-682.

M I K A L J. A A S V E D A N D J A M E S M. S C H A E F E R

341

Newman, O. (1968). The sociology of the betting shop. British Journal of Sociology, 19, 17-33. Orford, J. (1985). Excessive Appetites." A psychological view of addictions. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ramirez, L. F., McCormick, R. A., Russo, A. M., & Taber, J. I. (1983). Patterns of substance abuse in pathological gamblers undergoing treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 8, 425-428. Rosecrance, J. (1986). Why regular gamblers don't quit: A sociological perspective. Sociological Perspectives 29, 357-378. Schaefer, J. M. & Aasved, M . J . (1990). Minnesota Slots: An observational study of pull tab gambling. Report to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Mental Health Division. Duluth, MN: University of Minnesota Center for Addiction Studies. Sjoberg, L. (1969). Alcohol and gambling. Psychopharmacologia, 14, 284-298. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyondfreedorn and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Taber, J. I., McCormick, R. A., & Ramirez, L. F. (1987). The prevalence and impact of major life stressors among pathological gamblers. InternationalJournal of the Addictions, 22, 71-79. Zola, I. K. (1963). Observations on gambling in a lower class setting. Social Problems, 10, 353-361.

Monitoring adolescent gambling in Minnesota.

Legalized gambling and its impacts in a central Minnesota vacation community: A case study.

An exploratory study of gambling cross addictions.

Problem gambling among ethnic minorities: results from an epidemiological study.

Internet gambling and risk-taking among students: An exploratory study.

An observational study of attending rounds.

An observational study of asymmetry in CMT1A.

An observational study of emergency department utilization among enrollees of Minnesota Health Care Programs: financial and non-financial barriers have different associations.

Atrial fibrillation: an observational study with outpatients.

Productivity of Noun Slots in Verb Frames.

Teenage gambling: a pilot study.

Gambling: The shaping of an opinion.

Acoustic behavior of tuning slots of labial organ pipes.

Picking up the tab for erythropoietin.

Picking up the tab for erythropoietin.

Gambling Motives: Application of the Reasons for Gambling Questionnaire in an Australian Population Survey.

Increasing Incidence of Melanoma in the Elderly: An Epidemiological Study in Olmsted County, Minnesota.

Increasing incidence of melanoma among middle-aged adults: an epidemiologic study in Olmsted County, Minnesota.

An Expert Map of Gambling Risk Perception.

David Tab Rasmussen, naturalist at large.

Picking up the tab for erythropoietin.

Picking up the tab for erythropoietin.

Prevention of vertical transmission of hepatitis B: an observational study.

Aneurysm Study of Pipeline in an Observational Registry (ASPIRe).