Angie Bachmann Gambling Addiction: Who’s Responsible?
The question upon who should be placed responsible for Angie Bachmann gambling debts has been an issue of debate over yrs, with various scholars keeping her responsible for this. Other scholars associate typically the casino to be responsible with regard to her gambling debts. Angie Bachmann is a pseudonym, but the events usually are real world happenings. Her betting habits developed over years. She was married yet didn’t have a significant job. From boredom and loneliness, Angie began proceeding to gamble in the riverboat casino. After her first visit, she began attending to the casino as soon as in a week, then twice in a week. Over 6 years, Angie Bachmann had become a normal website visitor to the riverboat casino, gambling for over three or more hours in a day time. Over decades of betting, Angie remained a normal mom, under no influence regarding drugs. She could gamble and win at periods, but losing was uniformity in her gambling (Boing. 2018).
As documented in typically the article by Boing (2018), things went out associated with control when Angie Bachmann lost everything in gambling. She had lost the million dollar inheritance in order to the casino and positioned a secret mortgage on her house. She could hardly pay for her $125, 000 promissory notes, which often prompted the casino to sue her for still to pay them $125, 000 in addition to $375, 000 penalties. She was left with practically nothing, except her lawyer in order to defend her for had been held responsible regarding her gambling debts.
However, Angie Bachmann really should not be held dependable for her gambling financial obligations. Her visit to typically the casino was not the girl own liking. Her wagering habits are defended by the neurological discoveries on the aspect of habit creation. Angie’s pathological gambling behavior that led to massive losses is defended simply by three elements of habit formation. These elements include “cue”, routine and reward, which usually later build up the habit of regular gambling till she lost everything inside a casino (Duhigg, 2012).
As documented by Duhigg (2012) the process of behavior formation begins with the trigger. This is the force that drives somebody to assume an automatic mode of action. It creates uncontrollable urge towards a particular action. Within the case of Angie Bachmann, the stimuli that build up her gambling habit were boredom and loneliness. Whenever she had been bored at home, the girl drove to riverboat on line casino to gamble. Another “cue” that justifies Angie’s wagering habit is her family members. Whenever he picked up a quarrel or a fight with her spouse or children, her next destination was the casino. In this case, the woman family may be held accountable for building up typically the gambling character in her.
Typically the cue consequently builds up a routine, and Angie became a regular visitor to the casino. The frequencies of her go to build up an addiction, which made her the frequent gambler. The reward catalyzed the aspect of routine (Duhigg, 2012). When Angie was bored or even irritated, the casino seemed to be the solution to be able to her dampness. The prize helps the person to determine whether a particular conduct is worthy to consider in future. Based on the fact that Angie Bachmann gained excitement in the casino after experiencing depressions at home was justifiable for her to embrace frequent wagering habits. Another element associated with reward that can defend the girl gambling habits is the probability of winning. Even though it was not on regular basis, Angie won sometimes. In one event, she went to the casino with $80 in her purse, after few hours of gambling, she went home with $530, enough to buy her groceries and pay for the home telephone bill (Boing, 2018). Any rewarding behavior according to Duhigg (2012) is worthy to consider, and this virtual established the gambling habit in Angie that later led to huge gambling debts and lose her million inheritance.
The gambling companies have adopted enticing tricks to retain their gamblers and earnest as much money from them. The ‘power of habit’ helped the casino to manipulate the behavior of Angie Bachmann. The casino took the advantage of the fact that there is no law that obligates a casino operator not to entice or contact gamblers that it knows or should know are compulsive gamblers and went ahead to entice Angie. The casino offered her free suites, credit, and booze. According to her lawyer, the casino took advantage of her inability to control her gambling habits and preyed onto her (Duhigg, 2012).
However, habits are certainly not destiny. One has the provision to amend their habits upon evaluation of their outcomes. According to the Rat Park experiments, addiction is not a physical force (Slater, 2005). Although her lawyer cites addition as a driving force that led to the gambling debts, Angie Bachmann could have taken control of the problem upon losing at her first stages of gambling. However, she gambled over decades of losing, even though she admits having the knowhow of losing a lot of money. Again, she was not responsible for her persisted gambling even upon frequent loses. A research shows that the casinos are designed in a appealing nature that increases an optimistic perception even on losing. A research by Reza Habib; a cognitive neuroscientist explains how the gambling operators are taking advantage of pathological gamblers. In most casino slots, the gambling machines have three provisions; win, near miss and lose. The modern machines have been programmed with more provisions of ‘near miss to manipulate the gambling habits.
According to the experiment by Reza Habib, not a problem gamblers perceive the ‘near miss’ as a qual loss. In actual sense, it is a loss because the gambler gains nothing other than an appealing note. To this group of gamblers, it is a warning to quit before things get worse. On contrary, the pathological gamblers have lost a whole lot in gambling, and the ‘near miss’ convinces them that they will win if they persist gambling. Angie gambling habits had turned her to the pathological gambler, and she always anticipated winning. Other she gambled more on loss, the near miss perception builds the eagerness to gamble more, with zeal and anxiety building in her hope to recover what she had initially lost to the casinos (Boing, 2018).
In conclusion, the power of habit theory justifies that Angie Bachmann is maybe not responsible for her gambling debts. She was a victim of pathological gambling, which was developed by cue, routine and reward elements of habit formation revolving around her family and the casino. Circumstances introduced her to gambling, and the prevailing situations build up this character to frequent gambling that led her to lose lots of money and property. The casinos took benefit of the established habit to use her. Although the lawyer presented these arguments before the court, the court could not buy her arguments.