Betfair Official Blog

Doubts and deviant behaviour: What responsibility do bookmakers have to gamblers?

In a moving discussion of the bookmaker's responsibilties, Jack Houghton has his conscience pricked. And then feels okay again.

A pre-wedding clear-out of college notes proved a humbling experience. The author of the notes thought about big questions; agonising over whether his answers represented truth. That the same person now grapples with no question more taxing than "tea or coffee?" is depressing. That his answer, depending on who's asking, is often a lie is even more disquieting. What happened to that enquiring mind? When did it shift from bright to banal?

The main conscience-pricker was an essay on Stanley Milgram. For those unfamiliar with his work, Milgram was a social psychologist who conducted a series of famous experiments, starting in the 1960s, which sought to discover how far people would go if ordered by an authority figure. The experiments focused on a participant delivering a series of electrical shocks to another "participant"; under urging from a "scientist". A full description of the methodology and results - and the resulting uproar - can be found on Wikipedia. However, the crucial - and terrifying - nugget to be taken from the work is that, irrespective of race, nationality and gender, over 60 per cent of participants were prepared to deliver what they believed to be fatal electrical shocks to another human being. All because a guy in a white coat told them to.

Who gives a flying...? What's this got to do with racing? Admittedly, very little. But the conscience was pricked not just because of some nostalgic view of a curiosity and sincerity long since disappeared; but because it brought into focus a question that worries from time to time: by working for, and now writing for, a gambling company, have I promoted a lifestyle choice that will prove ultimately destructive to some who pursue it?

Because let's face it: some who start to gamble develop a problem. It's hard to quantify exactly how many. The percentages bandied around are largely meaningless; influenced far more by the motivation of the organisation publishing the figure than by any rigorous scientific methodology. Nonetheless, whilst gambling remains a harmless pastime for most; it inevitably presents a problem for some.

But is this Betfair's - or any other bookmaker's - responsibility? Although many punters view the placing of a bet as a directly competitive act - them versus the bookie - those administering the bet rarely see it in such stark terms. Bookmakers are barely aware of individual bets; simply viewing them as part of a flow of money, continually passing through their hands, leaving a percentage of itself behind on each journey. They have no real relationship with winners and losers and so can't be held responsible for the actions of those specific individuals.

Isn't that explanation reminiscent of how participants in Milgram's experiment must have justified their actions; seeing themselves as a cog in a wheel, rather than an active participant? No one is forcing anyone to bet, so how can those who offer the facility be blamed for any negative outcome? The corollary is, of course, that those delivering the electrical shocks in the experiments believed the recipient to be a volunteer also, yet few would say they were right to deliver those potentially fatal jolts.

Much of this comparison is, of course, ludicrous. In contrast to receiving an electrical shock, gambling can be a positive experience. And whereas those who agreed to join Milgram's experiment were sternly instructed to continue to the end, gamblers have full agency in deciding when to bet and when to stop. So, although the conscience is pricked, I think I feel okay.

Those who espouse there is only one kind of gambling - problem gambling - are very clear in their position. Those who gamble, and those who provide the facility to do it, are participants in a deviant behaviour. But even in moments of doubt, your view as to whether gambling is right or wrong comes down to a crucial decision. You either think that individuals have the right to choose how they live their lives, or you don't. For most who gamble, there is no problem. For some, there is. It's critical to put in safeguards to help the some, but not to the detriment of the most.

Next week, I'll write in detail about some of those safeguards. And I'll outline strategies you can use to ensure gambling remains a positive part of life. In the meantime, if anyone reading this feels they might have a problem, please go to www.gambleaware.co.uk for information on how to find help.