Gambling addiction can exist completely hidden behind work, marriage, children and everyday family life. Matt Casburn's gambling started with small football accumulators before online betting turned it into something completely different - in-play gambling, thousands of pounds in bets, loans, debt, bookmaker VIP treatment and an obsession with winning back everything he'd lost.
In this episode of The Addicted Recovery Show, Matt tells me how gambling consumed his savings, how he took out huge loans, gambled money meant for improvements to his family's home and eventually broke down in front of his wife and their builder when there was nowhere left to hide. We talk about Gamblers Anonymous, rebuilding trust, becoming present again as a father, paying off the damage and why almost eight years into recovery he now uses his experience to help other people struggling with gambling addiction.
It's very rare that you see anyone who ruins their own life by lying and wasting money they don't have through gambling, taking full responsibility. Same here, as predicted. This chap's not the worst I've seen, but he readily admits to fraud and theft. If he got finance in his wife's name but used his own funds to service it, he wilfully cheated the IVA, too.
He comes across as ok generally, but electing an IVA instead of a DMP as it meant he would not need to repay all of his debts. No buddy, that's not good.
It's very rare that you see anyone who ruins their own life by lying and wasting money they don't have through gambling, taking full responsibility. Same here, as predicted. This chap's not the worst I've seen, but he readily admits to fraud and thef
The question for me is whether he was actually addicted to gambling or was desperately chasing because he could see no other way of getting the money back.
I think the notion of addiction is thrown around too loosely and hides the fact that two different things might be going on.
The question for me is whether he was actually addicted to gambling or was desperately chasing because he could see no other way of getting the money back.I think the notion of addiction is thrown around too loosely and hides the fact that two differ
The tale is pretty common, was gambling normally, won some decent money. Thought he could be a gambling genius, found out it was luck more than judgement that he'd won and yes, became addicted to chasing the losses back.
Nearly every serious gambler has gone on the chase at some point. I guess some people don't reach the same conclusion at the same point. That the money is gone, and end up borrowing/stealing/committing fraud to try and win it back. I feel you're right that it's not an addiction as such, but a reluctance to accept defeat. In this chap's case, he only stopped gambling as he'd ran out of road in front of his wife. And then she obviously threatened to throw him out. But someone with a genuine addiction wouldn't have been able to make that rational choice, I suspect.
It's an interesting question, and I'm pretty hard line on it, but I have very little time for people that don't take full responsibility for their own poor/weak choices.
The tale is pretty common, was gambling normally, won some decent money. Thought he could be a gambling genius, found out it was luck more than judgement that he'd won and yes, became addicted to chasing the losses back. Nearly every serious gambler
lots of threads on X yesterday about news programmes in usa on, american based problem gamblers, and the gist of it was those defending it were saying if he bets/stake $100,000 he,ll get $80,000 to $90,000 of bit back or lose 10 to 20 grand, those % seem way to high anyway but what ever the % are, thats an average and as theres big winners out there, means theres millions loing 100% of what they stake easiest example is when they used to say fruit machines return 97% of every £ put in them, but tht doesnt mean every player only loses 3% of their £
lots of threads on X yesterday about news programmes in usa on, american based problem gamblers, and the gist of it was those defending it were saying if he bets/stake $100,000 he,ll get $80,000 to $90,000 of bit back or lose 10 to 20 grand, those