Is it possible for a CG to 'control' their gambling?

Agree with Deano. You only have to look at the ever increasing profits for the industry to see they're not funded by Granny's fiver a year on the National.

As for how long it takes to consider being gf a long term state I seem to remember a post from Dan saying it's not until five years that the stats start to turn in the recovering CG's favour.

Personally speaking I wouldn't be happy with Mr L participating in any form of gambling from a school T*****a ticket up. I can't think why he would want to after the mayhem he unleashed. He's turned down the chance to participate in share option schemes at work for precisely this reason.

Allain

I agree we have to want to change. But what can we do to bring about that desire? We might get a light bulb moment, but without that we need to be proactive. One of the routes I mentioned appears most effective.

It strikes me that you're taking my point personally. I think I read you have a bet playing golf (apols if wrong).

That's thin edge stuff. What I'm concerned about, is stuff like, the classic one - fobt addict decides only doing sports bets. Sports bet addict only does accers/spread betting

I don't personally see the point in thin edge stuff like the lottery. If you've broken your 'poison', why not go the whole way. There's a sense of pride and self control in doing do. And you can accrue 'gamble free days', which you can't do if still doing thin edge gambling. That's my personal view on thin edge stuff but I don't think it's a biggie and, if that's what the debates really about, believe me, I wouldn't be investing the energy.

Good point re my over-defensiveness using the word 'lying'. That's unecessary and I apologise for that. Mistaken is indeed more accurate.

I can't provide data but, if you were some weirdo hanging around A @ E observing treatment success - you could notice striking success rates (in relative terms) in terms of treatments, which is my point. In the words of Roy walker....I say what I see

I also think that logically it's pretty obvious that addicts can't control - but that's a separate matter.

Phil - so in your view, GA people are victims yet you're threatening to stop posting because some ideas you put out are being challenged. Aye.

You've made a big thing about how you're different from other gamblers. I understand why you do this. I used that logic too. That I was special, that different rules apply...to me! The added bonus is, you get to gamble!

-

A flaw in the 'controlled' gambling idea is what if you win? E.g. you are only doing the odd lotto ticket or a fiver acca at the weekend and suddenly win 600 quid. How many if us, honestly, would then stick to the odd lotto ticket or fiver acca?

I only mention this example as it's a scenario based on my own experience. Abstained for quite a length of time and got a 'free' bet on a site I hadn't used in a while and managed to turn it into around 600. Did I stop there and use the money wisely? I did aye! Not a chance. Was the worst thing that could have happened was winning as it dragged me back into the pits of despair and futher into debt. I cannot win coz I cannot stop.

When I first arrived on the forum back in 2012 I had come across the idea of controlled gambling and as an active CG it obviously appealed to me very much! An addict will use any reason to continue using but evidence shows the result is the same.

As a compulsive gambler I know I can't gamble in any form. It has taken me years to realise this as for a long time I held on to the notion that I could be magically cured someday and could enjoy a small bet or poker with the lads etc.

-

I find reading the above post infuriating. It tells half a story, suggests that gambling pays but the reality of gambling away all of your money and what you did to get more money is set out in your diary. All credit to you for the diary, for coming to GC, for your efforts to be gf...but IMO the above post is totally irresponsible, heaven help a newbie reading it.

If you add up what you spent on gambling and deducted the limited sums returned to you under the guise of winning, there's a net outflow. Hence debts etc.

It's not even about the money or the debts. (Once the net outflow stops, in time the debts resolve.) It's about the emotional side of it, real relationships with the humans around you instead of a relationship with the process of placing a bet.

CW

Allain

When I say you take it personally, let me put it more clearly.

Because you fall under the technical umbrella of a controlled gambler, due to lotto and golf bets, you're arguing with me in order to defend your personal position, rather than argue with any objectivity ( in spite of me clarifying the importance of thin/thick end of wedge controlled).

Ok, so rather than say 'controlled gambling never ever works', I could say 'controlled gambling never works, apart from a couple of possible exceptions like playing the lotto or entering the world cup sweep stakes at work every four years' (the poster ODAAT springs to mind -but I think I read she's gone total. So I can't currently think of any 2 year + control gamblers).

But what's the point in muddying what's really a straight forward message?

sometimes, for impact and clarity, it's important to make a statement without adding 100 minor disclaimers which detract from a simple point.

My argument, in this case isn't about the logical argument (which is overwhelming), but the point that the data shows it doesn't work. This is based on 4 years (and more time spent on this board than is healthy) on this board.

Is this not an incredibly important point to make? Shouldn't this be shouted from the rooftops?

There aren't many posters who have been on the forum 4+ years. It does give me a position to comment which shorter term posters don't have.

It took me a long time to tell my parents. During this period in between stopping and telling, I don't think I ever played down the importance of telling family, as a general principle. I was just too scared to do so.

Likewise, I always advocate GA although never engaged with it. This is because I can see objectively what works.

Therefore, if I pick away at GA or at the idea of opening up to family - and argue that it's not effective, when in fact I'm just feeling insecure about my approach, that's pretty dodgy ground I'm in.

Your approach to this argument has that feel.

That's what I mean by taking it personally.

Totally agree that the drugs strategy is a joke .

Appreciate you are keen to help and usually do so. Just don't think you are helping here.

Louis

-

-

I think I'm going to have to be on my guard for the rest of my life but that doesn't - in my opinion - mean my life has to be unhappy. My gambling problem started when I was 40 and I started addressing it when I was 43. The last year was like being in hell - fun? No way.

Allain

Just because something is unprovable, doesn't mean it's not true.

It's blatantly clear, from observing literally 10,000s of posts, that controlled doesn't work. Obviously I can't provide data as I've not kept a record. However I'm satisfied that there is enough evidence to say this is 'true'.

Obviously you don't have to take my word. But there is a definitive answer (a spectrum - I might be 98% correct - this could be correct, IN FACT, in 987,987 out of 1,123,123 gamcare cases) - there's an answer, it's just logistically unprovable.

I think your mixing up opinion/fact and truth.

Just because something is not a (provable) fact, doesn't mean it's not 'true'.

Examples:

Consider the mantra 'I cannot win because I cannot stop'. Most ADDICTS strongly relate to this. It almost operates as a law of nature.

A few might deny such truth, some people might even claim that they ended on a win so find fault in this mantra. But, overall most addicts would say the mantra is clearly true.

The mantra 'I cannot win...' does not generally apply to NON-ADDICTS'. This applied to non addicts , as a general statement, is 'untrue'.

If only facts can be truths, then there's no need for the word truth.

Do I have to say 'I cannot win because I cannot stop, apart from in cases where a person finishes on a win, gets hit by a car and becomes paraplegic etc etc'?

Me saying controlled gambling doesn't work isn't really an opinion. It's an observation - which is either right or wrong. My observation is subject to bias. But why would I be bias about this?

-

Dear members,

Just a reminder to aim to debate with good will rather than hostility, and to communicate your view with respect for others.

" Please show consideration and respect for other users and for their opinions. Be sensitive to how your messages may be viewed and perceived by others".

http://www.gamcare.org.uk/forum/using-section-forum

Thanks,

Forum admin.

It's a lively debate anyway which is good! We don't all have to agree, discussion and debate breeds understanding.

Was just reading the initial question of the topic again - Is it possible for a Compulsive Gambler (CG) to 'control' their gambling? In my opinion the evidence is clear to suggest not. By evidence I mean reading the forum over and over here and talking in real-life situations about it also. There may be exceptions to this but I've yet to see it work for anyone for any sustained length of time (I mean years so no need to debate how long etc. and deflect away from the topic question).

I think 'compulsive' and 'controlled' can't really go together anyway. The very definition of compulsive (resulting from or relating to an irresistible urge) is the opposite of control.

I second what Sam said, it's good to discuss and debate (besides, all the time we're here we're not gambling!).

I agree that a "controlled compulsive" is a bit of an oxymoron so, in theory, it could never work. Would it be possible to suggest that a 'problem' gambler and a 'compulsive' gambler are, in effect, two different mindsets? A gambler who has an addiction to a certain type of gambling may be addicted to the 'game' rather than the gambling element (I can imagine that this is most true of slots/FOBTs) and therefore MAY be able to exercise control over other forms of gambling.

I am merely asking this by way of adding a different angle to the debate and not as a justification for any slot addicts (myself included) to start betting on the horses.