Angie Bachmann Gambling Addiction: Who’s Responsible?

The question on who should be held accountable for Angie Bachmann gambling debts has been a matter of debate over years, with different scholars holding her accountable for this. Other scholars associate the casino to be responsible for her gambling debts. Angie Bachmann is a pseudonym, but the events are genuine life happenings. Her gambling habits created over years. She was married but didn’t have a meaningful job. Out of boredom and loneliness, Angie began going to gamble at the riverboat casino. Following her very first visit, she started attending to the casino as soon as in a week, then twice in a week. Over 6 years, Angie Bachmann had turn out to be a typical visitor to the riverboat casino, gambling for over 3 hours in a day. More than decades of gambling, Angie remained a typical mom, below no influence of drugs. She could gamble and win at instances, but losing was consistency in her gambling (Boing Boing. 2018).

As documented in the report by Boing Boing (2018), issues went out of control when Angie Bachmann lost almost everything in gambling. She had lost a million dollar inheritance to the casino and placed a secret mortgage on her home. She could not pay for her $125,000 promissory notes, which prompted the casino to sue her for owing them $125,000 and $375,000 penalties. She was left with nothing, except her lawyer to defend her for had been held accountable for her gambling debts.

Nevertheless, Angie Bachmann ought to not be held accountable for her gambling debts. Her go to to the casino was not her personal liking. Her gambling habits are defended by the neurological discoveries on the aspect of habit formation. Angie’s pathological gambling behavior that led to enormous losses is defended by 3 components of habit formation. These components incorporate cue, routine and reward, which later construct up the habit of normal gambling until she lost every little thing in a casino (Duhigg, 2012).

As documented by Duhigg (2012) the process of habit formation begins with a trigger. This is a force that drives somebody to assume an automatic mode of action. It creates uncontrollable urge towards a distinct action. In the case of Angie Bachmann, the stimuli that create up her gambling habit were boredom and loneliness. Whenever she was bored at property, she drove to riverboat casino to gamble. Yet another cue that justifies Angie’s gambling habit is her household. Anytime he picked up a quarrel or a fight with her husband or young children, her next location was the casino. In this case, her family can be held responsible for building up the gambling character in her.

The cue consequently builds up a routine, and Angie became a normal visitor to the casino. The frequencies of her go to construct up an addiction, which created her a frequent gambler. The reward catalyzed the aspect of routine (Duhigg, 2012). Whenever Angie was bored or irritated, the casino seemed to be the answer to her dampness. The reward helps the particular person to figure out no matter whether a specific behavior is worthy to adopt in future. Primarily based on the truth that Angie Bachmann gained excitement in the casino after experiencing depressions at house was justifiable for her to embrace frequent gambling habits. Yet another element of reward that can defend her gambling habits is the probability of winning. Although it was not on normal basis, Angie won at times. In a single occasion, she went to the casino with $80 in her purse, and following few hours of gambling, she went property with $530, adequate to purchase her groceries and spend for the home phone bill (Boing Boing, 2018). Any rewarding behavior according to Duhigg (2012) is worthy to adopt, and this virtual established the gambling habit in Angie that later led to large gambling debts and drop her million inheritance.

The gambling companies have adopted enticing tricks to retain their gamblers and earnest as significantly funds from them. The ‘power of habit’ helped the casino to manipulate the behavior of Angie Bachmann. The casino took the benefit of the fact that there is no law that obligates a casino operator not to entice or speak to gamblers that it knows or must know are compulsive gamblers and went ahead to entice Angie. The casino presented her cost-free suites, credit, and booze. According to her lawyer, the casino took benefit of her inability to manage her gambling habits and preyed on her (Duhigg, 2012).

However, habits are not destiny. 1 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). Even though her lawyer cites addition as a driving force that led to the gambling debts, Angie Bachmann could have taken manage of the scenario upon losing at her very first stages of gambling. Nonetheless, she gambled over decades of losing, although she admits obtaining the knowhow of losing a lot of cash. Again, she was not responsible for her persisted gambling even upon frequent loses. A analysis shows that the casinos are designed in an appealing nature that builds up an optimistic perception even on losing. A investigation by Reza Habib a cognitive neuroscientist explains how the gambling operators are taking benefit of pathological gamblers. In most casino slots, the gambling machines have three provisions win, near miss and shed. The modern machines have been programmed with a lot more provisions of ‘near miss to manipulate the gambling habits.

According to the experiment by Reza Habib, no dilemma gamblers perceive the ‘near miss’ as a qual loss. In actual sense, it is a loss since the gambler gains practically nothing other than an appealing note. To this group of gamblers, this is a warning to quit ahead of issues get worse. On contrary, the pathological gamblers have lost a 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 passion to gamble more, with zeal and anxiety developing in her hope to recover what she had initially lost to the casinos (Boing Boing, 2018).

In conclusion, the energy of habit theory justifies that Angie Bachmann is 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 members and the casino. Circumstances introduced her to gambling, and the prevailing scenarios create up this character to frequent gambling that led her to shed lots of funds and property. The casinos took benefit of the established habit to exploit her. Although the lawyer presented these arguments just before the court, the court could not acquire her arguments.