Blame It on Reno: a Commentary on Hancock and Smith

Paul Delfabbro, Daniel L. King

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

3 Citations (Scopus)


In this article, we provide a commentary on Hancock and Smith’s critique of the Reno model of responsible gambling. In our view, Hancock and Smith raise many legitimate concerns about the progress of gambling policy reform. Most attempts at minimising the harm associated with higher risk gambling products such as EGMs have been based on responsible gambling principles rather than a true consumer protection framework. As a result, much of the emphasis has been on modifying individual behaviour rather than significant reforms relating to industry operations, practices and the nature of the products. On the whole, we endorse these views. However, we argue that the paper depicts developments in research and policy a bit too selectively and also imputes too many causal links between the Reno model and other activities in the gambling sector. Some reforms and research topics identified in the paper have been discussed, investigated or implemented in some jurisdictions. Other issues including the slow replacement cycle of gambling technology and the structure of the gaming industry may also need to be considered as barriers to reform.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1203-1208
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2017
Externally publishedYes


  • Commentary
  • Gambling
  • Problem gambling
  • Reno model


Dive into the research topics of 'Blame It on Reno: a Commentary on Hancock and Smith'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this