People Who Live Near Gambling Venue Is At Risk Because Too Close To Home

People Who Live Near Gambling Venue Is At Risk Because Too Close To Home

Living near a pokie place is a risky enterprise. This is a key finding in our comprehensive 2010 poll of gaming behavior in the metropolitan centers of the Northern Territory.

Our study found that in the event that you live near poker machines you’re more inclined to gamble and gamble more frequently than somebody who lives farther away.

This finding, although perhaps unsurprising, is vital since few studies have really directly analyzed the connection between residential proximity to both pokie places and gaming behavior.

We’ve known for some decades, in Australia, the further pokies you will find in a place, the greater the rate of gambling problems in that region. This implies that the inhabitants of regions with a greater density of pokies are more inclined to suffer in the ill-effects of gaming.

That which we have not known until now is that the particular impact of residential space from pokie places about the frequency of visitation, gaming involvement, and gambling-related damage. In that case, how much more could they gamble?


We requested over 7000 people that pokie place they visited most often, how frequently they gambled, and also a standard set of queries used to measure problem gambling. Then we calculated the traveling distance by road from every home to all 64 seen pokie venues within our study region.

Because gaming places have a tendency to cluster in suburbs, we corrected for neighbourhood and individual socioeconomic standing in our investigations.

Frequency of place visitation and space

We discovered that the nearer you live to a gaming site, the more frequently you see according to the figure below. In comparison to an average of 2.8 times a month for individuals living one kilometre off, and 2.2 times a month for individuals living ten kilometres off.

Betting participation and space

Residential space to place also plays a substantial part in gaming involvement. The figure below demonstrates that, for bars and nightclubs, the estimated average chance of enjoying the pokies drops from 31 percent for somebody living 100 metres from their place, to 21 percent for somebody living one kilometre off down to 14 percent for a person ten kilometres off.

Put yet another way, gamblers are more inclined to visit venues nearer to their own homes than non-gamblers.

This space effect wasn’t clear for casino-goers. While space played an essential part in predicting gaming involvement at bars and nightclubs particularly within the first five campuses went to the place folks were equally as likely to gamble at a casino irrespective of how much they travelled to arrive.


The load of gaming injury falls most heavily upon individuals who live near a gaming venue or who see casinos. The speed of gambling injury in our analysis one of those residing within 100 yards of any gaming venue was more than 50% greater than among those residing ten kilometres out of a place.

For authorities, stricter licensing policies that restrict the traveling distance between pokie places and residential locations, certain low-income ones, could decrease problem gambling. The Victorian government has proposed destination-style gaming (which is, focusing gaming in fewer, bigger places), however in 2008 lost the idea on the grounds that problem gaming wouldn’t be decreased.

Our study challenges this premise. Our findings imply that the elimination of pokies from residential areas can decrease gambling damage in the foreseeable future, but as we’ve noted elsewhere, executing a destination-style gambling plan may entail different dangers, including higher rates of problem gambling in massive areas.

Our discovering that gaming in casinos is significantly affected by distance travelled in comparison to pubs and clubs is significant at the present political climate of extreme casino liberalisation. We know that big places like casinos are more harmful than smaller ones. Our present study makes clear they have considerably greater pulling power compared to smaller places.

This usually means that casinos, instead of finding near low income suburbs, can rely upon their exceptional attractive capacity to pull in punters from tens of kilometres off. To attract more gamblers that they concentrate on updating their facilities, often competing for pokie bucks with clubs and resorts instead of with interstate or global casinos.

And being located, casinos may harvest significant pokie takings from an whole city. A proliferation of new casinos will be very likely to result in an intensified load of gaming injury across a metropolitan place.

But for bars and nightclubs, our findings imply that gambling injury can be affected by their place. Betting participation can be lessened by maintaining pokie places further away from residential areas, especially poorer ones. And that is something which, at least in concept, can be affected by regulators.

Finally, for those worried about restricting the neighborhood fallout from poker machines, the two increases in the size of places and their continuing dispersal into new places ought to be resisted.