Inside Asian Gaming

IAG JAPAN OCT 2020 62 COLUMNISTS E very jurisdiction is different. What works to minimize harm from gambling in one jurisdiction may not succeed in another. Nevertheless, some jurisdictions have put more effort into developing harm minimization measures than others. Without questioning the motives or the political environments which can place limits around what might be possible, comparisons can be illuminating. The world’s biggest and most successful integrated resorts operate casinos in markedly different environments. Some of these jurisdictions are rightly held up as offering superior experiences, both in the area of gambling as well as non-gambling offers. Nevertheless, a comparison of respective efforts to offer gambling in a responsible way throws up results which might be unexpected. Because of its extraordinarily high levels of gaming expenditure (player losses), many believe that Macau has a lesser commitment to harm minimization than its recognized competitors. However, the evidence paints a very different picture. Macau has a robust self-exclusion program, a proven harm minimization tool, while Nevada does not. Similarly, there is no smoking while gaming in Macau, while there is no such restriction in Singapore or Nevada. While smoking bans are generally considered to be a public health measure, they do have an associated gaming harm minimization aspect, as people who still wish to smoke in a casino where it is banned must take a break from gaming to do so. This is important, as research proves that time spent gaming on each visit to a casino is one of the three key parameters that lead to gambling harm (alongside bet amounts and frequency of visits). Likewise, there are restrictions on advertising of casino gaming in Macau, but no such limits in Nevada. In legislation introduced last year, the Macau government also banned off-duty casino workers