Games of chance have a mathematical nature besides their entertainment features. They are so designed for the house to never loose over the long run and this design is the result of working on the mathematical models that the games represent. If (applied) mathematics did not exist, games of chance would not exist and therefore games of chance are mathematical games by nature.

There is a strong trend of the p-g research from its very beginning to focus on the biological part of the problem (having the individual as subject) in a social context and ignore the mathematical nature of the game. I say “ignore” in the sense of not exploiting at maximum such nature in the relation of the gambler with the game s/he plays. Such trend is explainable due to professional practice and habitual reasons (a psychologist would definitely be more open to collaborate with a psychiatrist, a chemist or a medical doctor instead of with a mathematician), however my concern is on the side of the results on prevention and treatment of gambling addiction, which are still poor:

As far as I know, in any addiction there is an individual and an object the individual is addicted to. Therefore any solution of preventing and treating that addiction should employ the results of the studies on both the individual and the object, but also on their interaction. This is my logic of a non-psychologist. Take the example of smoking addiction: the object has a certain design, structure and content, based on materials of a chemical nature; say it is a chemical object. Smoking-addiction research employed such chemical nature of its object, along with that of the individual. Why then p-g research does not employ the mathematical nature of its object? Introducing electronic cigarettes succeeded in eliminating some harmful effects of the smoking, possibly with potential of curing the addiction in certain circumstances. Such introduction affected the nature of the object as perceived by the smoker. Why do not think it is possible that an enhanced mathematical treatment can do a similar introduction in the way gamblers perceive the game? When I say “enhanced” I refer to a treatment beyond the classical delivery of plain curricular mathematical knowledge to gamblers, which proven ineffective, but focused more on the real relation between mathematics and the gambling reality and the perception of such relation.

So my question is straight: why the mathematical side is ignored and researchers continue to deal exclusively with substances, drugs, brain and social conditions, since researches of other addictions do not ignore the nature of their objects? In anticipating the answers, I assume as right my premise that all object, individual and their entire relation must be explored and employed for finding the adequate path to successful prevention and treatment; under this logic I cannot accept the results of the studies saying that mathematical (didactical) interventions were useless as a reason for moving the focus on the other side (the non-mathematical side). So, my question turns into: why would my logic be wrong?

Thank you for your time.

http://www.philscience.org/pages/pgmathspec.html