Many banks do charge a small fee for utilizing the service, but they vary from one bank to the next. Be sure to check with your financial institution to learn about possible fees associated with Interac casino deposits and withdrawals.
Both EspaceJeux and Royal Vegas offer desktop and mobile compatibility. Both are built in HTML5, integrating Flash-based software to play the games without a download. This means players can log in from a Mac. PC or Linux computer, or from their Android. iOS or Windows powered smartphones and tablets. However, the range of mobile games available differs greatly. As things stand, it’s easy to see why so many Canadian players prefer to take their iGaming overseas. Interac has been operating in Canada since 1984, starting out with just 5 member banks. Its cooperative has since grown to include more than 250 member banks, trusts, credit unions, caisses populaires, merchants, and other financial service institutions. As an added security measure, Flexepin warns never to provide the details of a Flexepin cash voucher by “e-mail, text or over the phone ”. Authorised Flexepin merchants will never require voucher info to be supplied by such means. Check Content For Errors. Look at the website. Read the text, especially full paragraphs of text (as opposed to one-liners). If it’s written in English, how well is it written? Are any words mixed up? Are there noticeable punctuation or grammatical errors? Flexepin is partnered with a vast assortment of regional retail outlets to ensure Canadians have easy access to purchase cash vouchers. Use this Flexepin Retailer Search Map to find the locations nearest you. “New and innovative products like live casino will help BCLC continue to deliver the very best in gambling entertainment to our players while benefiting communities across British Columbia,” Bohm concluded in a statement. Other potential partners include the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) and Lotto-Quebec ; the only other two provinces to host online gambling monopolies in their respective territories. There are countless veteran online gamers out there who make their way through a multitude of internet casinos. If an operator is ripping off players, or doesn’t provide honest slot machines, word will get out very fast! Trusted software certification firms that guarantee honest slot machines from their clients include: Slot machines in Canada, the US, Australia, Europe, and everywhere else are widely known to have low payout percentages – some of the worst of all casino games. If a casino is rigging the games for even worse payouts, it’s not only unfair, it’s illegal. The question regulators are surely asking themselves now is what they can do to compete with offshore competition. The best way to answer that would be to compare the Quebec online casino with the most successful operators on the market who accept Canadians. Here are some great tips that will help lead you in the right direction. Heed these warnings and you can enjoy playing fair and honest slot machines to your bankroll’s content.
One thing a lot of less experienced players don’t realize is just how many different types of slot machines exist on the web these days. It’s not just about choosing 3 reel classic slots or 5 reel video slots, or how many paylines are on the menu. There are so many extra features, like wilds, multipliers, free spins and bonus games, that must be considered. This gives players the feeling that they are winning, and does tend to make bankrolls last longer. However, they only paying for entertainment that will, more often than not, result in an overall loss. The reason is simple enough. The Quebec online casino simply doesn’t stack up to what overseas operators provide their customers. In terms of game variety, OS compatibility and promotional offers, EspaceJeux isn’t nearly as appealing as its offshore rivals. For example, Microgaming software is certified by eCOGRA. one of the oldest and most respected auditing authorities in the iGaming business. Seems pretty underhanded, right? If you can’t beat them – kick them out of the race! Canada’s telecommunication authority thought so to. Hence, that part of the bill was soon deemed unconstitutional, preventing Quebec from enforcing the IP block.
Bonus round slots are defined by the presence of additional features in the game. Specifically, features that include a second-screen bonus game – one that does not take place on the reels, as is the case with many standard features like free spins, stacked wilds, re-spins, cascading reels, random wild triggers, etc. The certification process is an arduous one. Auditors will run each and every game through at least one million cycles to ensure the accuracy of the random number generator (RNG) and that the probabilities of winning fall within regulatory requirements. No legitimate operator would design their website for English players, without hiring an editorial team that is fluent in that language. Just like those spam emails that tell us some foreign prince wants to make our monetary dreams come true, it’s a clear sign of a scam. Flexepin vouchers offer ultimate security to Canadian users. Virtual vouchers are a prepaid payment service, thus the user is never required to share any personal financial details, such as credit card information of bank account details, with the recipient. The real question to ask yourself is why you’re playing Canadian bonus round slots for real money? If the entertainment value is a high priority, these games are a great choice, and with enough luck, they can be profitable, too. Interac casino deposits don’t work the same as traditional payment methods, which is why they are so secure. In order to send money, for any purpose, the user must select a security question and answer. They must then (discreetly) tell the recipient the answer to the question. Like other Canadian provinces, the BCLC holds a monopoly over local online gambling services. International operators are not legally permitted to promote their products to residents. For any online gambling software company to ink a contract with the BCLC is extraordinarily rare, indeed.
In truth, it’s not a slot machine at all, but an arcade game. The fact that it’s in a slot-style cabinet, and you have to input money in hopes of winning more back, is the only thing slot-ish about it. But that’s a good thing for anyone who grew up playing shoot’em-up console and PC games. Obviously, it would take some major changes before the Quebec online casino could possibly compete with international sites like this. Instead of traditional one-armed bandits, we have push button and touch screen slots. They require minimal effort from the player, and can payout across more than 1,000 lines in a single spin. Not all varieties are modernized, though. Last year alone, Playtech dished up more than €154 million in progressive jackpot payouts to an average of 33,000 winners each and every month. At its most fortuitous peak, the software firm paid 1,090 winners in a single day. Players will be asked to supply the 16 digit code from the voucher. Type this into the input window (double check for accuracy), then click on the appropriate button (Next. Submit. Confirm. etc.) to complete the purchase. With more than 600 online slots titles in its portfolio, Playtech offers the largest number of progressive jackpot slot machines in the online gambling industry. There are currently 113 progressives on the menu, with many of them networked for faster growing jackpots. But remember, even skill-based slots must stick to the pre-programmed RTP (return to player), so no matter how skilled you are at a particular mini game, it doesn’t always mean you’ll make a profit. It only makes sense that BCLC would choose Evolution to integrate the first provincially-regulated Live Casino Canada. If you want to provide the best live casino in Canada, you team up with the best supplier in the world. You can Look Up Flexepin Authorised Merchants here.
But if any single word can be used to describe Evolution Gaming, it’s extraordinary. The live casino company, which currently hosts studios in several European locations, is widely regarded as the best in the business. Fair slot machines will always be accompanied by software certification. These certificates are issued by third-party auditing firms who run rigorous testing on the software systems employed by online casinos.
Online slot machines are the variety that can be played via desktop computer or mobile device (smartphones and tablets). There are thousands of internet-based slots on the market already, and software companies are putting out more and more with each passing month. Here are some of the most original designs we’ve seen. There are plenty of ways to move money between players and online casino operators. You could use a credit card, a debit card, an instant eCheck (ACH) or direct bank transfer. You could sign up with an eWallet like Neteller or Skrill. But none of these compare to the ultimate safety and security that prepaid card deposits provide.
As for the graphics, Pollen Party Slot has a vibrant, cartoon-style feel to it, with a queen bee’s hive situated atop a tranquil, grassy hill, and a distant cityscape as the backdrop. The game has been optimized for all internet gambling devices, including desktop, mobile and tablet (PC ,Mac. Android. iOS. etc). As the lone heiress, her quest to reclaim the family’s treasures from within the dilapidated remains of her once-exquisite home begins here. The game embodies 5 reels, 25 paylines and a multitude of features, including free spins, bonus games, and the ability to unlock 2x and 3x multipliers within. One jurisdiction you’ll want to watch out for is Curacao. If a website claims to have a Curacao eGaming licence, this could be a red flag. While Curacao does issue licences, it doesn’t handle customer complaints or enforce penalties for misconduct. Reputable operators put their terms in clear, understandable language. In fact, transparency in terms is a requirement of many regulatory bodies these days. If something seems fishy, it probably is. Customers must be at least 18 years old to purchase a Flexepin voucher, and will be asked to show ID if there’s any doubt as to the buyer’s eligible age. Flexepin casino deposits are provided as virtual cash vouchers that can be purchased in retail outlets in the player’s currency of choice. For Canadians, the ability to deposit and withdrawal in CAD is of utmost importance, as it allows player to avoid potentially expensive currency exchange fees. Monica Bohm, VP of iGaming for the BCLC, expressed equal conviction towards the new agreement. “We are delighted to enter into this agreement with Evolution, to bring the thrill of live, interactive casino gaming to our online players,” she said. A tentative timeline for the project estimates the live casino will be up and running before the year is out. Once completed, Evolution anticipates its presence in Canada will grow exponentially as it seeks new deals with other Canadian provinces to incorporate shared and dedicated live casino tables. After submitting the transfer, it will take anywhere from 2-5 minutes for the payment process to get underway. At this point, the receiving bank account is confirmed, and an email or mobile text message is sent to the recipient, who is asked to respond with the correct answer to the security question. Once that answer is received internet slots canada income, the transfer is complete. You may thinks it’s locked up tight, but countless people have been victims of hackers, covertly integrating key-loggers on a victim’s device to copy anything they type into it, including passwords and private personal and financial information. I assure you these victims had no idea their electronics had been compromised until it was too late. Although the distribution of non-problem and problem gamblers was similar for university student gamblers and the community gamblers, the gambling behaviors of those groups differed in several respects. Community gamblers engaged in more different types of gambling. Involvement was higher for problem than for non-problem gamblers in the community sample but not in the student sample. The relationship between problem gambling and involvement for the community sample is consistent with the results of LaPlante et al. (2013) for casino patrons. The involvement difference between students and community adults was supported by the analysis of specific forms of gambling. Community adults were more likely than university students to engage in most forms of gambling including Internet gambling (cf. Gainsbury et al. 2012 ) and playing slots outside the province. Those two forms of gambling are associated with problem gambling severity. It may be that larger amounts of disposable income support the wider range of gambling activities accessible to the community adults. Michalczuk et al. (2011) found that the greatest differences between a clinical sample of pathological gamblers and healthy controls occurred on the negative and positive urgency components. The groups also differed significantly on lack of planning and lack of perseverance, but not on sensation seeking. In a meta-analysis of impulsivity studies that included several measures related to the Cyders et al. (2007) components (excluding positive urgency), MacLaren et al. (2011) concluded that only negative urgency and low planning differentiate problem gamblers and controls. The PGSI has been judged as superior to the Victorian Gambling Screen and the South Oaks Gambling Screen as a screen of problem gambling (McMillen & Wenzel, 2006 ). Holtgraves (2009) recommended the PGSI as an index of the progression of gambling severity in non-clinical samples. The PGSI total score across the nine items is used to classify respondents into gambling subtypes as follows: 0 = non-problem gambler; 1–2 = low risk gambler; 3–7 = moderate risk gambler; 8 or more = problem gambler. Ferris and Wynne (2001) described non-problem and low risk gamblers as not having experienced any adverse consequences from gambling. Moderate risk gamblers were described probabilistically (i.e. may or may not) in terms of having experienced adverse consequences from gambling. Problem gamblers were described as having experienced adverse consequences from gambling. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the PGSI was 0.85. The main analyses focused on a dichotomous comparison of non-problem and problem gamblers (cf. Afifi et al. 2010 ; Currie, Hodgins, Wang, El-Guebaly, Wynne & Chen, 2006 ; LaPlante et al. 2013 ; Orford et al. 2013 ; Williams & Wood, 2007 ). Participants with PGSI scores lower than 3 were categorized as “non-problem” gamblers, and those with PGSI scores above 2 were categorized as “problem” gamblers. The pooling of the non-problem and low-risk groups is consistent with the description of those categories as not having experienced adverse consequences of gambling (Ferris & Wynne, 2001 ). In the critical comparison study conducted by Michalczuk et al. (2011). the healthy controls scored a maximum of 2 on the PGSI which is consistent with the present pooling of the non-problem and low risk categories. In the present study, the mean PGSI scores for the non-problem and problem groups were 0.67 (SD = 0.75) and 6.04 (SD = 3.59), respectively, t (78) = 12.92, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.07. The groups differed on each of the nine PGSI questions with all t ’s > 5, p < .001. Distribution of participants by gender and sample across PGSI categories A logistic regression was run to test the relative strengths of the correlates at predicting membership in the two gambling severity groups. The multivariate analyses showed that non-problem and problem gamblers differed on three motivations for gambling: amusement; avoidance, and money. Those variables were entered separately into the logistic regression. The PGSI groups differed on all the gambling cognition sub-scales which were all significantly inter-correlated (mean r = .60). Accordingly, as in Michalczuk et al. (2011). the overall mean gambling cognition score was used a measure of the cognitive correlate of gambling severity. Positive urgency and negative urgency were the only impulsivity sub-scales that significantly differentiated the two gambling severity groups in the multivariate analysis. Those scales were entered separately into the logistic regression. The number of types of games played was also entered as the involvement correlate of gambling severity. Michalczuk et al. (2011) tested the relative contributions of gambling cognitions and impulsivity to gambling severity. They found that the effect sizes for differences between pathological gamblers seeking treatment and healthy community control participants were larger on gambling related cognitions than on impulsivity. The present study was designed to analyze the distinctive contributions of impulsivity and gambling related cognitions to gambling severity across a broader spectrum of gamblers in the general adult population and in university students. There were few differences between the student and community samples on gambling motivation and personality. For the student sample, males scored higher than females on excitement motivation. There was no gender effect for excitement motivation in the community sample. Students overall scored higher on sensation seeking than did the community sample. There were no sample effects on gambling related cognitions, although the student sample exhibited a stronger tendency to adhere to the gambler’s fallacy when betting on the color of the winning number in a roulette game. None of the motivation and personality measures on which the samples differed were significant correlates of gambling severity. Moreover, the motivation and personality measures that were significant correlates of gambling severity did not yield sample differences. HM conceptualized the study, obtained funding, analyzed and interpreted the results, and wrote the manuscript. HM takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. JS and JD were the lead research assistants who co-ordinated data collection and data entry. The lower portion of Table 7 presents the mean probability of betting on an alternation in the color of the winning number following a run of a given color. A 2 × 2 × 2 × 3 (PGSI Group [non-problem, problem] × Gender [male, female] × Sample (students, community) × Run [1, 2, 3]) mixed ANOVA with Run as a repeated measures factor showed that the likelihood of betting on an alternation in color increased as the run length of the previous color increased, F (2, 364) = 22.31, p < .001, ηp 2 = .10. The linear trend was statistically significant, F (1, 193) = 36.06, p < .001, ηp 2 = .16, but the quadratic trend was not, F (1, 210) < 1. There was a marginally significant Sample × Run interaction online casino affiliate programs, F (2, 386) = 2.59, p = .08 online slots machines canada jersey, ηp 2 = .01. Separate single factor repeated measures analyses showed that the effect of Run was larger for the students than for the community sample: students, F (2, 226) = 27.96, p < .001, ηp 2 = .19; community, F (2, 161) = 6.09, p = .004, ηp 2 = .06. There was also a marginally significant effect of Gender, F (1, 193) = 3.23, p = .07, ηp 2 = .02. Males were more likely to bet on a color alternation ((M = .56, SD = .16) than were females (M = .52, SD = .17). Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRC). The GRC (Raylu & Oie, 2004 ) contains 23 items for which participants indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was 0.93. The alpha values for the subscales were as follows: expectancies, 0.82; illusion of control, 0.77; predictive control, 0.77; inability to stop, 0.86; interpretive bias, 0.84. Impulsivity. The Impulsivity scale (Cyders et al. 2007 ) contains 59 items for which respondents indicate their level of agreement using a 4-point scale from 1 = agree strongly to 4 = disagree strongly. The Cronbach’s alpha indices of internal consistency for the separate factors in the current study were: lack of deliberation. 87; lack of persistence. 85; sensation seeking. 91; positive urgency. 96; and, negative urgency. 90. Torres et al. (2013) tested 21 pathological gamblers in rehabilitation, 20 cocaine-dependent individuals in rehabilitation, and 23 controls. Negative urgency and lack of planning were the only significant predictors of clinical status (i.e. in rehabilitation vs. control). No measures of impulsivity differentiated the cocaine and gambling groups. Severity of gambling was indexed for the gamblers by scoring interviews that asked about the number of months they had gambled and the amount of money spent on gambling per month. Only negative urgency was related to gambling severity. The distinct personality profiles of participants across studies may have contributed to whether positive urgency is a significant predictor of problem gambling (Michalczuk et al. 2011 ) or not (Torres et al. 2013 ). Participants were tested in groups of up to four participants. Each participant was tested in a separate cubicle in the off-campus gambling laboratory. After signing an informed consent document, participants completed a survey that included questions about gender, the types of gambling activities engaged in over the past year, and the standardized PGSI, GRC online roulette canada xanax, Motivation, and Impulsivity scales. The survey was completed online or in paper and pencil format according to the preference of the participant. The main effects indicated that problem gamblers played more types of games (M = 3.35, SD = 2.23) than did non-problem gamblers (M = 2.78, SD = 1.46), female gamblers (M = 3.37, SD = 1.96) played more types of games than did male gamblers (M = 2.76, SD = 1.46), and community gamblers played more types of games (M = 3.79, SD = 1.98) than did student gamblers (M = 2.33, SD = 1.28). The PGSI group × Sample interaction was probed by examining the PGSI effect for each sample. The student sample did not yield a significant difference in gambling involvement between problem gamblers (M = 2.21, SD = 1.24) and non-problem gamblers (M = 2.42, SD = 1.30), F (1, 122) < 1. In contrast, the problem gamblers in the community sample had a significantly higher rate of gambling involvement (M = 4.41, SD = 2.58) than did community non-problem gamblers (M = 3.13, SD = 1.53), F (1, 111) = 10.64, p = .001, ηp 2 = .09. Effects of PGSI subtype on gambling motivation, gambling cognitions, and impulsivity As noted by Gainsbury et al. (2012) and Williams et al. (2012). a critical restriction on establishing general principles from studies of gambling is the dependency on the methods of recruiting the sample. In the present study, all participants had engaged in at least one form of gambling during the past year. The university student gamblers received course credit and gamblers from the general community were experienced participants in unrelated gambling studies. In addition, all participants were compensated with a financial payment. Although the participants did not risk their own money while gambling, they were motivated during the roulette game by the prospect of winning an additional financial prize. It is uncertain whether any of those considerations limit the generality of the pattern of results beyond the problem and non-problem gamblers who participated in the study. Another potential limitation in interpreting the gambling behavior results is that participants may have varied in their experience with roulette. Moreover, participants were allowed a maximum of 15 minutes of play during the roulette game. Although that time frame may be at variance with what players might select in a session within a true gambling environment, significant effects have been found in prior studies using a short period of time (e.g. Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2010 ). Furthermore, although many important features of gambling environments were not represented in the laboratory (e.g. unlimited play time, a wider range of betting amounts, opportunities for diversions such as refreshments and entertainment), evidence of adherence to the gambler’s fallacy showed that it is possible to capture essential characteristics of gambling in a controlled laboratory environment. Perhaps the most convincing evidence that the laboratory evoked representative gambling behavior is that every participant elected to participate in the roulette game although they had the option to take $30 and leave. Problem gambling is sustained by distorted gambling cognitions (Lund, 2011 ; Myrseth, Brunborg & Eidem, 2010 ). The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (Raylu & Oie, 2004 ) identifies five cognitive factors related to gambling in a community sample: expectancies (e.g. “gambling makes the future brighter”); illusion of control (e.g. “specific numbers and colors can help increase my chances of winning”); predictive control (e.g. “losses when gambling are bound to be followed by a series of wins”); inability to stop (e.g. “I can’t function without gambling”); and paypal casino kelleys, interpretive bias (e.g. “relating my losses to probability makes me continue gambling”). Emond and Marmurek (2010) found that those gambling related cognitions mediate the influence of irrational thinking styles on gambling severity. In a recent direct comparison of university student gamblers and gamblers in the general population, Gainsbury et al. (2012) reported that university student gamblers were less likely to gamble on the Internet, had fewer gambling problems, had a more negative attitude toward gambling, and held more irrational beliefs. It is uncertain whether any of those differences reflect differences in recruitment methods: students participated in partial fulfillment of course requirements whereas community gamblers were recruited online. Although the groups differ in age, it is not known whether motivational, personality, and cognitive predictors of problem gambling severity function differently in university student gamblers and gamblers in the general adult population. The primary purpose of the present study was to begin to fill that gap. Group differences in the associations among the correlates and problem gambling severity would suggest that interventions be specialized for the different populations. Keywords: motivation, impulsivity, gambling cognitions, gambler’s fallacy, problem gambling The authors declare no conflict of interest. You may not be able to visit this page because of: The symbols in this game include the White Orchid Logo, the White Orchid, the Man, the Lady, the Frog, the Cheetah, and the Butterfly, as well as playing card symbols. The playing card symbols are just like the cards that are used to play real money table games online. The White Orchid Logo is wild and substitutes all other symbols apart from the White Orchid, which represents the scatter. The wild Logo only appears on reels 2 hotel apps android, 3, 4, and 5 and the exciting fact is that you can get up to 4 stacked wilds on a reel to exponentially increase your winning chances. The White Orchid slot features a feminine touch with pink and white as the prominent colors. The focus on nature gives it a more relaxing feel and a retreat for players who aren’t fans of the action-laden, male-friendly games by IGT such as Star Trek – Against all Odds. However, White Orchid is more than just the stereotypical girly slot game; there’s more beneath its surface. Prevalence of participation in gambling behaviours by frequency, Grades 9 to 12 students in the Youth Gambling Survey (YGS) Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada, 2012-2013) The sample population was 49.3 % male and 50.7 % female. The mean age was 16.5 (SE = 0.1). The mean age for females was 16.4 (SE = 0.2) and 16.6 (SE = 0.1) for males. The mean age by province was 16.5 (SE = 0.1) in Ontario, 16.3 in Saskatchewan (SE = 0.2) and 16.3 in Newfoundland/Labrador (SE = 0.2). Overall, 41.6 % of youth in our sample were current gamblers (35.9 % of females and 47.4 % of males). Problem gambling was measured using the 9 item Gambling Problem Severity Subscale (GPSS) of the CAGI which is the only problem gambling measure developed specifically for adolescents [ 18 ]. Further details about the GPSS and its development can be found elsewhere [ 20 ]. Figure 2 reports the number of different types of gambling games played among online vs. land-based gamblers. Online gamblers were significantly more likely to participate in multiple gambling modes compared to land-based gamblers (χ 2 = 420.4, df = 4, p < 0.001). Of the 833 youth who reported gambling online, the majority (52.2 %) reported that they participated in 5 or more different types of gambling activities compared to 7.6 % 3 of the 3,095 land-based only gamblers. b Moderate sampling variability, interpret with caution Descriptive analyses of the types of gambling were examined by gender for the whole sample and by age for adolescents who had engaged in gambling. Descriptive cross tabulation analyses were used to examine the prevalence of engaging in online simulated gambling by gambling participation. Among adolescents who had gambled, we examined the prevalence of engaging in online, land based or both online and land based gambling. Gambling across multiple types of games was compared between online and land-based (those who never gambled online) platforms. Among online gamblers only we examined the types of games played online. Among adolescents who had gambled, cross tabulations were used to examine differences in the prevalence of problem gambling by gambling type (online vs. land-based only). In all analyses, survey weights were used to adjust for non-response between provinces and groups, thereby minimizing any bias in the analyses caused by differential response rates across regions or groups. Bootstrap weights were used for all significance tests so that the variances take account of the sample design. Significance was assessed using the first-order Rao-Scott chi-square test. For missing data, imputations were not performed; as such, the prevalence of each risk factor was based on the sample that had complete data for that particular indicator. This allowed us to preserve as much of the sample data as possible. Survey questions related to use of “free games” online had a higher proportion of missing data but sensitivity analyses demonstrated that including missing data did not significantly change the prevalence. For example, “internet slots for free” had the most missing data (n = 826 missing). With no missing data included the prevalence was 4.9 % with missing data included the prevalence was 4.5 %. The statistical package SAS 9.4 was used for all analyses. Online gamblers were any respondents who indicated that they had gambled money or something of value in the past for any of 3 online gambling activities: (1) internet poker; (2) sports pools online; (3) slot machines online. Land-based gamblers were any respondents who had gambled money or something of value in the past 3 months but had not participated in any of the online gambling activities. This study has several limitations common to survey research. Although the response rate was high and the data were weighted to help account for non-response, the findings are nevertheless subject to sample bias. In addition, the findings may reflect some underreporting for gambling behaviour common in survey research. However, research suggests that impression management effects may be an issue for self-reported problem gambling but not gambling behavior [ 30 ]. YGS data are also based on self-reported measures taken from CAGI lucky emperor casino bonus list, which have previously demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity [ 20 ]. Honest reporting was also encouraged by ensuring confidentiality during data collection. It should also be noted that the cross-sectional nature of the design does not allow for causal inferences regarding trends over time. Longitudinal data are required to determine the temporal sequence of the onset of these gambling behaviours. With the rapid proliferation of new gambling technology and online gambling opportunities, there is a concern that online gambling could have a significant impact on public health, particularly for adolescents. The aim of this study is to examine online and land-based gambling behaviour among adolescents in 3 Canadian provinces (Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador no deposit casino redeem coupons, Saskatchewan) prior to the implementation of legalized online gambling. There was a decline in most youth gambling activities in Ontario since 2003 except for online gambling which has remained stable [ 16 ]. Playing card games (10.7 %) and betting in sports pools (10.2 %) were the most prevalent land-based gambling activities in Ontario, whereas casino gambling (prohibited to those under 19) was the least prevalent (>1 %) in both Ontario and Saskatchewan. Males were significantly more likely than females to gamble [ 14. 16 ] and to report multi-gambling activity [ 16 ]. Older studies in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador suggest that scratch tickets, playing cards for money, playing the lottery and games of skill were among the most prevalent gambling activities, but this may reflect the fact that the research was conducted much earlier and gambling opportunities have changed since these surveys were conducted [ 14. 15 ]. Further information about the types of online gambling activities is not known. Despite restrictions on online gambling at the time of the study, adolescents were engaging in online gambling at a significantly higher rate than has been previously found. Adolescents were also using technology such as video games to gamble and free online gambling simulations. Respondents were asked to report how often in the last 3 months they bet or gambled money or something of value in 16 different gambling activities (see Table 1 ). Response options were “not in the past 3 months,” “about once per month,” “2–3 times per month,” “about once per week,” “2–6 times per week” and “daily”. Gambling frequency was coded as “at least monthly but less than weekly” if respondents gambled “about once per month” or “2–3 times per month”; and “at least weekly” if respondents gambled “about once per week,” “2–6 times per week,” or “daily”. The overall prevalence was based on any participation (indicated “about once per month” or more frequent). TEM and STL conceived of the study and oversaw data collection. TEM conducted the data analyses. TEM STL and NET interpreted the data analysis. TEM drafted the manuscript and STL and NET critically revised the paper draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. b Moderate sampling variability interpret with caution Overall, 41.6 % of adolescents (35.9 % of females and 47.4 % of males) had gambled in the past 3 months. 9.4 % of adolescents had gambled online in the past 3 months alone (3.7 % of females and 15.3 % of males). The most popular form of online gambling was online sports betting. Adolescents also engaged in online simulated gambling including internet poker (9.1 %) and simulated gambling on Facebook (9.0 %). Few adolescents participated in online gambling exclusively and online gamblers were more likely than land-based gamblers to engage in multiple forms of gambling. A higher proportion of adolescent online gamblers scored “high” or “low to moderate” in problem gambling severity compared to land-based only gamblers. Gambling on the outcome of video games is also one of the most popular forms of gambling for males (14.5 %). Further research is needed to understand whether adolescents are betting on the outcomes of video games or engaging in video games that include gambling for money, or both. What is known, is that the lines between gambling games and video games have become blurred as technology has changed [ 24 ]. Researchers have therefore become concerned that engaging in gambling with video games may increase the likelihood that gambling is viewed as more socially acceptable, may increase positive attitudes towards gambling, and could potentially increase the likelihood of problem gambling in the future [ 24 ]. The research on online gambling is still in an early stage in a rapidly changing commercial area. Given the increased legalization of online gambling, this topic needs to be explored further to test whether or not these concerns about youth access to the internet for gambling are substantiated. However, the current study demonstrates that given the popularity of video games for gambling particularly among adolescent males, further research is urgently needed. NR High sampling variability or low sample size, data are suppressed The government of Ontario launched their own legalized online gambling platform in January 2015. Although many jurisdictions have already launched government-run online gambling programs and most provinces in Canada have publicly expressed an interest in legalizing online gambling, the impact of government-run online gambling is unknown. Governments argue that legalization would allow online gambling to be regulated, that vulnerable populations such as adolescents would be more protected and that online gambling would generate tax revenues [ 28 ]. Indeed, previous studies have suggested that few safeguards exist for protecting underage youth from gambling on many online gambling websites and that the major barrier to online gambling is payment [ 29 ]. However, it is possible to gamble online using a PayPal account, wire transfers, single use credit cards, etc. Efforts to restrict youth gambling by ensuring age checks such as those used by the PlayOLG website may be more effective at restricting access. It is also possible that youth are accessing more unregulated forms of online gambling such as fantasy sports with friends online. Further research is needed to identify which websites youth are accessing. The University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics and appropriate School Board and Public Health Ethics committees approved all procedures for the YSS and YGS supplement. For schools that required active permission protocols, parents were sent information letters about the project and asked to return permission forms. For schools that required active information but passive permission, parents were provided with information letters about the study and were given a toll-free number to call if they did not want their child to participate. Students in all schools had permission to decline participation on the day of the data collection. Data was collected by the study authors and therefore no permission was required to publish these findings. b Moderate sampling variability, interpret with caution The prevalence of online gambling is significantly higher than has previously been found despite the fact that we used a shorter time frame (past 3 months vs. past 12 months used in the OSDUHS) [ 16 ]. A chi-square test of the difference in prevalence (9.4 % vs. 3.0 %) was 219.26 and therefore is significantly different (p < 0.01). One potential explanation for these differences could be how we assessed online gambling. Whereas previous surveys have asked respondents to report about their online gambling overall, we asked respondents about 3 specific types of online gambling: internet poker, sports pools online and slot machines online. It is possible that when respondents are asked to consider their online gambling they don’t immediately think of sports pools online as a form of online gambling and therefore under-report their online gambling behaviour. Data are from 10,035 students in grades 9 to 12 who responded to the 2012–2013 Youth Gambling Survey (YGS) supplement, a questionnaire administered as part of the Canadian Youth Smoking Survey (YSS, 2012) in 3 provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador (n = 2,588), Ontario (n = 3,892), and Saskatchewan (n = 3,555). 2-How is me raising questions about the wisdom of AAs using this type of experimental (among us) parenting style disparaging the way you and your cousins were raised? 2-Most AAs who support the traditional AA “parents empowered to whoop if deemed necessary” -parenting style do so from religious justifications, or a blind following of tradition. Neither of which are what I’m raising when I talk about the issue of corporal punishment. This woman, Alice Miller. has done decades of excellent work on this subject. Her books have saved my life! I’ve read similar statements by advice columnist Deborrah Cooper in her articles “Why Weak Men Want Submissive Women,” and “Jerks A$$holes Idiots and Abusive Behaviors – Recognizing Verbal Abuse” (http://survivingdating.com/?p=953 ). I am sending her a link to your blog hoping that you two can cross promote or something. Deborrah has said many times that she believes at least 75% of Black men are abusive and have been socialized to be that way towards Black women. She also says that 90% of Black women believe they deserve to be abused in ways they don’t even recognize as abuse! Shocking but you two are on the same page. ? As others have pointed out, if we become anaesthesised to violence in our early years we won’t develop an internal compass against it. In terms of the “privacy” thing, it sounds like your parents unwittingly gambled, and were blessed to win with how you turned out. Even when values are successfully transmitted to children, the very nature of childhood and adolescence is to exercise VERY poor judgment. Off topic (I hope you don’t mind Khadija) but your put downs have me laughing all the time, e.g; Barry for Barack, Al ‘hot comb’ Sharpton. Too funny LOL. There’s nothing wrong with disagreement or dissent here. I’m not looking for an “amen corner.” I’m looking to explore and brainstorm ideas for lifestyle optimization for AA women and girls. When I was growing up, there was one tv and it was in the family room. My parents controlled the tv. When I was in high school, you either watched what they watched (on tv or videotape), or you didn’t watch at all. And they weren’t watching a lot of tv. If you were watching something, my parents were constantly walking in and out and through the room on their way to other areas of the house. So, to spell out the (invisible to me at the time) protective factor in this: Nobody—including me, my brother, our older cousins, whoever—would have been able to watch pornography while others were home. So, here’s a quick checklist of the typical statements and attitudes expressed by domestically violent African-American males. This checklist is not meant to be exhaustive, but it represents the “highlights” of the mindset that I’ve heard expressed by most of the domestically violent African-American men that I’ve represented. Some of these statements and attitudes are common among domestically violent men among all races and ethnic groups. Some of them are culturally specific to domestically violent African-American males. [For one example slots games pch com blackjack, non-African-American men don’t whine about what men outside their ethnic group won’t “let” them do.] However, none of this negates the reality that the “mainstream” of domestic violence consists of male violence against women which results in injuries, maimings, and fatalities. The vast majority of seriously injured, maimed, and murdered domestic violence victims are women who were killed by men. Also, most physically mature males are physically much stronger than most physically mature females. So, with rare exceptions, there’s no real physical danger to a man in any weaponless confrontation with the vast majority of women. The man is physically stronger and can get away from most women. Women with the kick-buttocks physical abilities of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” are rare, indeed. This should be the dating bible for all women canada casino online 5th, not just us BW. Great list and discussion, it reminds me of some men I’ve known growing up, very creepy. I believe many Black women have no idea what boundaries are because they were brought up in a home which used violence as a form of so- called discipline. I can’t tell you the number of conversations I’ve had with adults who think it is legitimate to hit, slap, punch, use the wooden spoon, the belt or throw verbal threats at defenseless children. What I hate the most is the answer “spare the rod and spoil the child”, or “I got the belt as a child and it didn’t do me any harm”. And we wonder why adult women don’t know what boundaries look like. In addition, it makes me cringe when adults pass their children around to be kissed by uncle Johnny or aunty Jenny. Why? Why SHOULD a child have to kiss anyone? How is a child to learn when to let up the draw-bridge if everyone has access to it. I’ve heard all the ‘rational’ arguments in support of slapping a child, none of them stack up in my mind. We don’t think its okay to slap an adult to teach it a lesson, so why children. I debated whether to write this post. Ultimately, my concern that women are probably doing this same behavior in real life (at their own risk) outweighed my worries about inadvertently causing discomfort. Through NO fault of their own, many women simply don’t know these warning signs. I’m hoping to spread awareness about them, so that fewer women get hurt. And it’s best to use concrete examples. The “Visitor” individual’s statements provided a good example.] (20) While sometimes claiming to want to help, he eagerly presents many “reasons” why suffering is a fitting lifestyle for African-American women. You said. ”I’m also amazed at how so many modern Black parents allow their children to turn their bedrooms into studio apartments with phones, computers, tvs, stereos.” But I see that so many African-American women either don’t recognize these signals, or have trained themselves to overlook them. They continue to interact with these men as if they’re normal people. When women have unnecessary interactions with these males as if they are normal people, they are supporting these men’s statements and behavior. When you try to dialogue with these men as if they’re normal, you are helping to normalize their twisted viewpoints. You’re validating them even when you call yourself disagreeing with them. To even discuss their rantings with them gives them the message that their rantings are worthy of discussion. [For an example of this, at least in reference to the Taliban, see the comments of an individual calling himself “Visitor” during this recent conversation at What About Our Daughters. * Note: I’m not in any way saying that “Visitor” is a woman-beater. I have no idea what “Visitor” does or does not do in his life. However, several of his statements are useful examples of the warning-signal statements and attitudes on this checklist. (9) He rewrites history (personal and collective) to make other people (Black women, White men) responsible for his (and other African-American males’) behavior. The successful parents I know DON’T permit that destructive level of “privacy” for their underage children. If some other kid is sending sex-texts to their child, they often find out because they go through those phones and hold onto them when the children get home from school. And the children are only allowed to use the family land-line phone when they’re home (like I said, the cell phones are turned in to the parents upon arrival). This is why it is so critical for women to drop and stop interacting with a man at the first hint of controlling, disrespectful behavior. If you keep dealing with him after he’s “shown out,” you have (in his mind) given him permission to continue and escalate that behavior. Once you’ve stuck with him that far through the process, then you really will need a gun and the aid of a SWAT team to get away from him. The other thing that I’ve noticed about the domestically violent males I’ve represented is that they are not brave. They generally won’t attack some random, unknown woman. Nor do they attack a woman who has made it clear by her behavior that she would never put up with any of that. The physical, legal, and career risks of attacking such women are too high. Domestically violent men are not trying to end up with boiling water poured on their heads while they sleep. Or a bullet being put in their brains. Or their employment and career prospects destroyed because of a woman seeing their prosecution all the way through. Or some other unpredictable negative reaction from a woman who won’t tolerate abuse. 3-Want to be the child’s parent and not their buddy. This doesn’t preclude being friendly, or even being close as adults. But even so, there’s always a boundary between being a parent and being a peer. That was my experience and observation also. The whoopins were not the first step. The whoopins happened because the child had disobeyed and ignored the warnings that were already given. (11) He says women won’t “let” him be a man. You said, “Deborrah has said many times that she believes at least 75% of Black men are abusive and have been socialized to be that way towards Black women. She also says that 90% of Black women believe they deserve to be abused in ways they don’t even recognize as abuse! Shocking but you two are on the same page.” 4-Some of these folks seem uncomfortable with being true authority figures. At some point in grown-up life, one is required to drop the posture of the “cool,” rebel kid—and be the “un-cool,” “un-fun,” ADULT in the equation. They don’t understand that there are seasons in life. You can’t be the countercultural teenager forever. 1-The “we don’t spank the children”-parents are often focused on their own childhood grievances with corporal punishment. I believe that this is what’s going on with my friend. I have seen over and over again, numerous examples of how this type of destructive “privacy” has enabled children to get FAR gone into negative things without their parents’ knowledge—while still living under the same roof! Again, I understand that correlation does not equal causation. There could be a third underlying factor that’s causing what I’ve observed. For example, it could be that many of the AAs who are attracted to the “don’t spank the children” -parenting style are people who don’t want to anger their children by disciplining them. This is how so many inappropriate things have been intercepted, and apparently (God willing) nipped in the bud. None of the mess that was intercepted and dealt with (an aggressive 10 year old girl sending sex-texts to a 10 year old son; aggressive teenage girls calling a teenage son at all hours of the night; and so on) would have been caught if these parents had engaged in the modern AA parenting experiment of extreme “privacy” for children. (1) He speaks favorably of “controlling” women. Incidentally, for a man to use openly the phrase of “controlling” women is a very bad signal. Most abusive men that I’ve observed try to soften the language they use to describe abusive behavior toward women. (26) He’s uninterested in, and incurious about, anyone’s life experience that does not validate his experiences. I’m especially leery of AAs experimenting with untested, unproven practices because our migration away from other traditional human methods (mass oow and single parenting instead of marriage; welfare instead of working for a living; and so on) have created a catastrophe. I could not agree with you more. You said:”My line in the sand is with people who are opposed to the very goal of lifestyle optimization for AA women and girls.” (21) He feels that he and other men are entitled to assess and critique women’s behavior, but women cannot assess or critique his or other men’s behavior. Wow this discussion is getting very interesting. (16) He makes a (false) equivalence between the prevalence of male domestic violence and rape against women and things like false accusations against men, or female violence against men. This is another very bad signal. (19) While sometimes claiming to want to help, he takes pleasure in seeing African-American women suffering. Whatever the type of suffering, he can find a reason why the afflicted Black woman “deserves” it. Even responsible children and teens with good values don’t always perceive the danger that’s all around them. Innocence is the nature of childhood. That’s why “nosy,” “intrusive,” “dictatorial” parents are necessary. Well, not all of any category of persons does X, Y, Z behavior(s). You said, “I love your approach to this. I don’t feel like you talk down to your reader and I can feel the genuine concern and love coming from you.” Yes, I agree—I feel that AAs adopting these experimental, non-ethnic White yuppie parenting styles IS a (destructive) form of mimicking White culture’s bad ideas and dysfunctions. (28) There is no emotional wound of yours (and of other African-American women and girls) that he won’t rip open. Either to score a debate point. Or for pleasure. There are nuances to the issue of domestic violence. An unflattering truth about many of these situations is that I’ve watched many women use allegations of domestic violence (as well as sexual abuse of the children) as “cards” to play during divorce and child support proceedings. Discarding the traditional AA parenting style of “As the parents, we’re entitled to see anything and everything that’s in OUR house that WE’RE paying the mortgage for” and “If it’s brought into MY house, it ultimately belongs to ME, and I have the discretion as to what happens to that object” has been a HUGE mistake. I’m sure my parents would have had the same policy in terms of having a single, FAMILY computer in a common area. There wouldn’t have been the opportunity for small children or teens to dial up some online porn or have lengthy, private chats with online pedophiles because my parents were constantly walking through and glancing at whatever was being watched or done in the family room.
0 Commentaires
Laisser une réponse. |