Yesterday, I posted about the results of a study indicating that online gambling was one of the few risky Internet activities that teenagers were NOT participating in. Instead, they were viewing porn and purchasing weapons and alcohol online.

Today comes a different study that seemingly indicates otherwise.

According to a survey produced by the University at Buffalo's Research Institute on Addictions, there are "approximately 750,000 young problem gamblers nationwide" in America, or about 2.1% of the population between the ages of 14 and 21.

Those are some scary numbers, and given the methodology explained in the press release, there doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt the results.

Unfortunately, the full results of this study aren't going to be revealed until the June issue of some journal called the Journal of Gambling Studies. Which brings up a couple of questions:

There is a Journal of Gambling Studies? Why wasn't I notified?

Seriously, there are a couple of things I would like to know or mention:

• Why does every gambling survey seem to break down the ages between 13 or 14 and 21 or 22?
  To me there is a BIG difference between the maturity level of a 13-year-old who is just going through puberty, and a 21-year-old who has been living away from home for a few years. Why can't they break up these surveys between "high school and younger" and "college or older"? Or maybe 13-18 and 18+? Hopefully, this study does make that breakdown and they just haven't mentioned it in the press release.

• The release does mention that the study takes into account different life factors, such as employment, student status, living independently from parents, and marriage. All of that should serve to provide some meaningful evaluations about which kids are gambling, and which ones are not.

• I am in no way intending to minimize the magnitude of the problem this study reveals, but it is worth mentioning that a number of studies have put the percentage of problem gamblers within the adult population at somewhere in the 1.5-3% range, which is remarkably similar to the 2.1% measured in this study. Could it be that the 2.1% of adolescents measured in this study are simply individuals exhibiting a pre-disposed behavior problem that in this case happened to be spotted earlier in their lives?

• One nice takeaway from the study is the point mentioned in the release that the rates of problem gambling found in this study were not "as high as the rates of problem gambling found in eight previous studies conducted in smaller jurisdictions by other research teams". So either this is a definitive number, or else things are getting better. Either way, this is nice.

• I must admit that I was surprised by the statement, "Asians as a racial group showed the lowest gambling involvement." Without resorting to racial stereotyping, I would wager that this statement would seem surprising to anybody working in the gaming industry.

Not matter what the final report reveals, I am glad that information like this is being studied. And I am even more glad that it appears to be being done in a professional and unbiased manner.