Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  1
1995 Video Lottery Survey - Results by Player Type
Patricia A. Gwartney, Amy E. L. Barlow, and Kimberlee Langolf
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory
June 1995
INTRODUCTION
This report's purpose is to examine results of the 1995 Video Lottery Survey conducted
for the Oregon State Lottery by the University of Oregon Survey Research Laboratory.
The specific goals of this report are to examine the characteristics, behaviors, attitudes,
and Indian gaming of four particular groups of lottery players, specifically Non-players,
Lapsed Players, Traditional Lottery Players, and Video Lottery Players.  We begin the
report with a brief overview of the survey methodology and the methods of data analysis.
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection
From February 20 to March 19, 1995, OSRL collected data from 3,017 randomly
selected Oregonian adults regarding their attitudes towards games of chance and gaming
behaviors, as well as demographic information.  The data were weighted to match 1994
Oregon population parameters, and an SPSS data file was created for data analysis.
Methods of Data Analysis
The methods of data analysis include stacked bar frequency distributions, bar graphs,
medians, and multivariate regression analysis.  The text summarizes the results of this
analysis and refers readers to the appropriate supporting tables and graphs.  At the end of
this report is a ?technical note? explaining variation in ?n?s? on tables and graphs.
RESULTS
Overall Sample
In the overall sample, the average survey respondent
?  was 47 years old,
?  had a high school diploma or a few years of college,
?  a household income of $30,000-34,999, and
?  had a per capita household income of $16,250.1
                                                          
1 In order to standardize household income to a rate based upon the number of persons who derive
benefit from it, we divided annual household income by the number of persons in the household.  Thus,
unlike household income, per capita income is independent of number of persons in the household, and
therefore represents a better measure of the disposable income of the individuals in the household.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  2
More specifically,
?   the highest educational level attained by  57% of the sample was a high school diploma
or a few years of college (no degree);
?  27% completed a bachelor?s degree or higher.
?  nearly one-third of the sample had annual household incomes of $45,000 or greater
?  22% had annual household incomes of $30,000 to $44,999.
?  almost three-fifths of the sample had per capita household incomes of $20,000 or less
?  59% of the sample was employed, with an additional 36% not in the labor force 
(keeping house or retired).
?  57% were female.
Player Groups
For purposes of this report, the overall sample was divided into four player groups on the
basis of their lottery playing behavior in the 5 years, 3 years, and 1 year preceding the
survey.
Non-players did not play any form of traditional lottery game in the past 5 years,
nor any video poker lottery in the past 3 years.  Non-players comprise 32% of the
sample.
Lapsed Players comprise respondents who reported playing traditional lottery
games at least one time in the previous 5 years but not in the past year, or they
played video poker lottery in the previous three years but not the past year.  In
order to obtain a sample size adequate for statistical comparison to the other
groups, lapsed player status may override current game-playing status:  for
example, if a lapsed video poker lottery player currently plays traditional lottery
games, he is still categorized as a lapsed player.  Lapsed players represent 15% of
the sample.
Traditional Lottery (TL) Players reported playing at least one traditional lottery
game (Scratch-its, Keno, Sports Action, Daily Four, Break-opens, Powerball, and
Mega-Bucks) in the previous 12 months. TL Players comprise 36% of the sample.
Video Poker Lottery (VL) Players were defined as those who played video poker
lottery games in the previous 12 months.  They may also have played traditional
lottery games: in order to obtain a sample size of video lottery players adequate
for statistical comparison to the other groups, video poker lottery status overrides
traditional lottery playing;  that is, any respondent who has played traditional
lottery games but also has played video lottery is categorized as a video lottery
player.  VL Players comprise 17% of the sample.
                                                                                                                                                                            
Where appropriate, we further divided annual per capita income by 12 to come up with monthly per
capita household income.  Respondents' individual income was not asked in the survey.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  3
For each group defined above, the data analysis is organized around their demographic
characteristics, general attitudes toward the lottery, playing behaviors, and spending
behaviors.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  4
Table 1:  Demographics by Type of Player
All Type of Player
Respondents Non-Player Lapsed Traditional Video Lottery
Age
18-29 12.1% 10.5% 14.7% 9.1% 19.2%
30-49 44.3% 39.2% 51.2% 41.8% 53.3%
50-64 20.9% 16.8% 19.6% 26.5% 17.7%
65+ 22.7% 33.5% 14.5% 22.5% 9.8%
Median 47.0 50.0 43.0 49.0 40.0
n 2,438 775 374 887 400
Sex
Female 56.7% 58.1% 57.2% 60.0% 46.3%
Male 43.3% 41.9% 42.8% 40.0% 53.7%
n 2,458 786 374 894 402
Highest Level of Education Completed
No High School Diploma 9.2% 9.9% 7.9% 10.1% 7.3%
High School Diploma/GED 28.4% 23.6% 26.8% 30.0% 35.5%
Some College, No Degree 28.5% 25.7% 33.5% 27.7% 31.3%
Associates Degree 6.8% 6.7% 9.4% 6.1% 6.3%
Bachelors Degree 17.7% 20.3% 17.0% 16.2% 16.6%
Masters Degree or Higher 9.4% 13.8% 5.5% 9.8% 3.0%
n 2,453 783 374 893 401
Labor Force Status
Employed 58.9% 46.2% 65.0% 59.8% 75.4%
Keeping House 12.6% 15.0% 14.0% 13.2% 5.8%
Not Employed 5.5% 7.2% 3.6% 4.5% 6.2%
Retired 23.0% 31.6% 17.5% 22.4% 12.7%
n 2,325 736 360 846 380
Annual Household Income
Less than $10,000 10.6% 16.1% 11.2% 7.7% 6.2%
$10,000-19,999 17.4% 20.4% 19.0% 17.2% 11.4%
$20,000-29,999 18.1% 16.0% 19.5% 19.6% 17.6%
$30,000-44,999 21.7% 19.3% 22.6% 20.7% 27.2%
$45,000 or More 32.2% 28.2% 27.7% 34.8% 37.6%
Median $30-34,999 $30-34,999 $30-34,999 $30-34,999 $35-44,999
n 2,852 885 420 1,039 504
Annual Per Capita Income
Less than 10,000 26.9% 29.3% 28.9% 26.6% 21.6%
$10,000-19,999 32.6% 31.6% 33.2% 33.5% 32.5%
$20,000-29,999 18.8% 15.1% 20.4% 19.2% 23.2%
$30,000 or More 21.6% 24.1% 17.5% 20.7% 22.8%
Median $16,249.75 $14,999.88 $14,999.88 $16,249.75 $17,499.50
n 2,749 821 409 1,020 496
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  5
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDES BY PLAYER
GROUP
Non-players
Non-players are close to one-third of the total sample.  Their demographic profile is
substantially older, more likely to be out of the labor force, lower income, and better
educated than the other player groups.  One-third of Non-players are age 65 or greater,
and 47% are retired or keeping house.  Non-player?s annual household income
distribution is also low, with over one-third less than $20,000, suggesting the fixed
incomes typical of retired persons.  However, Non-players? per capita household income
is close to average, indicative of small household size.  Non-players are slightly more
likely to be female.  Over one-third have completed a college bachelor?s degree or
higher.
Graph 1: General Feelings About the Lottery
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=512
Pe
rc
en
t
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FAVORABLE
NEUTRAL
UNFAVORABLE
60
29
41
38
26
11
23
29
62
Given that Non-players have never played traditional lottery games or video poker
lottery, it is not surprising that their attitudes toward the lottery in general are largely
unfavorable.  Fully 62% have unfavorable feelings about the lottery in general, and 66%
have unfavorable feelings about video poker lottery.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  6
Graph 2:  General Feelings About Video Lottery
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=508
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FAVORABLE
NEUTRAL
UNFAVORABLE
45
33
3739
25
22
3938
66
Lapsed Players
Lapsed players, who are about one-sixth of the sample, have a demographic profile that is
relatively young, average educated, employed, and financially less well-off than
Traditional and Video Lottery groups.  Just over half of Lapsed Players are aged 30-49
and an additional 15% are younger.  Two-thirds are employed, and household income is
average, but per capita income is relatively low (almost two-thirds below $20,000 each),
suggesting the presence of children in households.
Lapsed Players? general feelings about the lottery are the most divided of all groups, with
one-third favorable, 38% neutral, and 29% unfavorable.  Lapsed players? feelings toward
video poker lottery are less positive, with 23% favorable, 39% neutral, and 38%
unfavorable.
Traditional Lottery (TL) Players
TL Players are over one-third of the sample (36%).  They are somewhat older and more
female, but their education, labor force status, and household income looks quite similar
to the general population.  Nearly half of TL Players are age 50 or older and three-fifths
are female.  58% have completed a high school diploma or some college, and 60% are
employed, plus 22% retired.  Over one-third have annual household incomes of $45,000
or more, and one-fifth have per capita household incomes of $30,000 or more.  About one
quarter have college bachelor?s degrees or better.  Again, this profile is the most similar
of all the player groups to the demographic profile of the entire sample.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  7
TL Players? overall feelings about the lottery are more favorable than Lapsed Players?,
with 36% favorable, 41% neutral, and just 23% unfavorable.  On video poker lottery,
however, just 24% are favorable, 37% neutral, and 39% negative
Video Poker Lottery (VL) Players
VL Players comprise 17% of the sample, and they are the youngest of the four player
groups, the most male, the least well educated, the most likely to be employed, and they
have the highest household incomes.  Over half of VL Players are ages 30 to 49, plus
nearly one-fifth are younger.  54% of VL Players are male, compared to 43% or less of
the other player groups. One-fifth have completed a college bachelor?s degree or more,
and 43% have a high school diploma or less.  Fully three-quarters of VL Players are
employed.  Annual household income for VL Players is 38% earning $45,000 or more,
plus 27% earning $30,000 to $44,999.  Per capita household is also high, with 56%
earning $20,000 or more for each person in the household, compared to 40% or less for
the other player groups.
VL Players? overall feelings about the lottery are very positive:  fully 60% favorable,
29% neutral, and just 11% unfavorable.  Their feelings about video poker lottery are
more positive than any other group?s, but less positive than about the lottery in general:
45% favorable, 33% neutral, and 22% negative.
LOTTERY SPENDING BEHAVIORS
Total Lottery Spending
How much do players spend on lottery games each month, and how does that vary by
demographic characteristics?  Examining, first, all lottery spending (traditional games
plus video poker games), we have categorized spending into thirds, with sample sizes of
roughly 300 in each group:  $1-7 in the previous month is called ?Low,? $8-12
?Medium,? and $22 or more labeled ?High.?.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  8
Table 2:  Demographics by Amount Spent
               on All Lottery Games Last Month
All Low Medium High
Respondents ($1-7) ($8-21) ($22+)
Age
18-29 12.1% 13.5% 12.0% 7.2%
30-49 44.3% 44.3% 41.1% 45.1%
50-64 20.9% 21.7% 28.4% 31.6%
65+ 22.7% 20.5% 18.5% 16.2%
Median 47.0 46.0 48.0 49.0
n 2,438 279 303 289
Sex
Female 56.7% 56.6% 56.4% 45.8%
Male 43.3% 43.4% 43.6% 54.2%
n 2,458 280 303 289
Highest Level of
Education Completed
No High School Diploma 9.2% 9.5% 8.6% 12.6%
High School Diploma/GED 28.4% 25.1% 36.6% 34.5%
Some College, No Degree 28.5% 30.7% 30.4% 30.7%
Associates Degree 6.8% 8.0% 4.9% 7.2%
Bachelors Degree 17.7% 18.8% 13.0% 11.8%
Masters Degree or Higher 9.4% 8.0% 6.5% 3.3%
n 2,453 280 303 289
Labor Force Status
Employed 58.9% 65.1% 64.4% 65.6%
Keeping House 12.6% 13.2% 7.8% 8.5%
Not Employed 5.5% 2.7% 9.0% 3.1%
Retired 23.0% 19.0% 18.8% 22.8%
n 2,325 272 294 278
Annual Household Income
Less than $10,000 10.6% 7.3% 7.3% 8.4%
$10,000-19,999 17.4% 15.5% 18.7% 14.2%
$20,000-29,999 18.1% 17.8% 20.1% 16.6%
$30,000-44,999 21.7% 25.8% 21.3% 25.0%
$45,000 or More 32.2% 33.7% 32.6% 35.8%
Median $30-34,999 $35-44,999 $30-34,999 $35-44,999
n 2,852 331 348 343
Annual Per Capita Income
Less than 10,000 26.9% 22.1% 26.5% 27.5%
$10,000-19,999 32.6% 37.9% 28.6% 28.4%
$20,000-29,999 18.8% 21.6% 25.1% 18.9%
$30,000 or More 21.6% 18.3% 19.8% 25.2%
Median $16,249.75 $16,249.75 $17,499.50 $16,328.27
n 2,749 325 341 338
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  9
Low Spenders are younger in median age, more female, better educated, and fairly
average in employment and annual household income.  Specifically, the average age of
low spenders is 46, and 58% are less than age 50.  However, Low Spenders also have the
largest proportion age 65 and older, at 20.5%.  57% of Low Spenders are female.  56%
have completed high school or some college;  27% have a bachelor?s degree or more.
Very similar to the other spending groups, about two-thirds are employed, median
income is in the $35,000-44,999 category, and per capita household income is $16,250.
Medium Spenders? demographic profile is slightly older, similar in sex composition, less
educated, more unemployed, and with lower household income but higher per capita
income than Low Spenders.  Medium spender?s average age is 48, with 53% less than
age 50 and 18% age 65 or older.  56% are female.  Two-thirds ended their education with
a high school diploma or some college;  20% of Medium Spenders have completed a
bachelor?s degree or higher.  Very similar to the other two groups, 64% are employed,
but fully 9% of Medium Spenders are unemployed and looking for work, compared to
3% of the other two spending groups.  Median annual household income is slightly lower
than the other two groups, in the $30,000-34,999 range, but per capita income is higher,
at $17,500, suggesting smaller household size.
High Spenders have the highest median age, are predominantly male, and are the least
educated of the three groups, but they are quite similar in employment and household
income to Low Spenders.  The median age of High Spenders is 49, but their age
distribution is more concentrated in the middle ages than the other two groups, with 53%
less than age 50 and just 16% age 65 and older.  As with Medium Spenders, about two-
thirds ended their education with a high school diploma or some college;  only 15% have
a bachelor?s degree or higher, and fully 13% did not complete a high school diploma.
66% of High Spenders are employed, annual household income is in the $35,000-44,999
range, and annual per capita income is about $16,300.
Lottery Spending and Traditional Lottery Game Playing Behaviors
Lottery spending patterns are strongly associated with TL Players? game-playing
behaviors.  That is, high spending TL Players are more likely to play every type of
traditional lottery game than low or medium spenders.  MegaBucks, Powerball and
Scratch-Its are the most popular games among TL Players, with over one-half of medium
and high spenders and one-third or more of low spenders playing these games in the
month preceding the survey.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  10
Graph 3:  Played Scratch-Its in Last Month
by Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
High, n=352
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
56
44
53
64
Graph 4:  Played Keno in Last Month
by Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
High, n=352
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
35
65
88
97
Over half (56%) of high spending TL Players played Scratch-its in the month preceding
the survey, compared to 47% of medium spenders and 36% of low spenders.  The parallel
figures for Keno were 35%, 12% and 3%, respectively.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  11
Graph 6:  Played Daily Four in Last Month
by Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
High, n=352
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
11
89
97
100
Graph 7:  Played Break-Opens in Last Month
by Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
High, n=352
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
10
90
9799
About one-tenth of high spenders played the Daily Four and Break-opens in the month
preceding the survey, compared to 3% of medium spenders and 0-1% of low spenders.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  12
Just 12% of low VL spenders would play more if video lottery was in alcohol-free places,
26% would play more if it was offered in smoke-free places, and 20% would play more if
different games were offered;  three-fifths to three-quarters of the group?s playing
behavior would not be altered by these innovations.
Graph 8:  Played Powerball in Last Month
by Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
Total Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
High, n=352
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
85
15
32
56
Graph 9:  Played MegaBucks in Last Month
by Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
Total Amount Spent on Traditional Lottery Last Month
High, n=352
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
88
12
26
50
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  13
Among high spending TL Players, 85% played Powerball and 88% played MegaBucks in
the month preceding the survey.  Among medium spenders, 68% played Powerball and
74% played MegaBucks.  Among low spenders, 44% played Powerball and 50% played
MegaBucks.
Video Poker Lottery Spending
Patterns of VL Players? spending are quite different from total lottery spending,
especially for those who spent more than $20 in the previous month.  To assess
demographic patterns of Video Lottery players? spending, we again classified spending
into thirds.  The naturally occurring categories were nearly identical to total lottery
spending:  $1-8 ?Low,? $9-20 ?Medium,? and $21 or more ?High,? with 51-58 players in
each category.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  14
Table 3:  Demographics by Amount Spent
               on Video Lottery Games Last Month
All Low Medium High
Respondents ($1-$8) ($9-20) ($21+)
Age
18-29 12.1% 22.0% 15.3% 15.9%
30-49 44.3% 41.9% 55.6% 67.3%
50-64 20.9% 20.9% 25.2% 7.1%
65+ 22.7% 15.3% 3.9% 9.7%
Median 47.0 45.0 40.0 40.0
n 2,438 51 57 58
Sex
Female 56.7% 48.8% 53.1% 37.2%
Male 43.3% 51.2% 46.9% 62.8%
n 2,458 51 57 58
Highest Level of
Education
Completed
No High School Diploma 9.2% 3.6% 9.5% 15.3%
High School Diploma/GED 28.4% 30.2% 39.6% 39.9%
Some College, No Degree 28.5% 34.0% 39.6% 15.9%
Associates Degree 6.8% 18.3% 0.9% 2.7%
Bachelors Degree 17.7% 13.5% 8.5% 24.0%
Masters Degree or Higher 9.4% 0.4% 1.9% 2.1%
n 2,453 51 57 58
Labor Force Status
Employed 58.9% 75.8% 75.1% 83.4%
Keeping House 12.6% 5.1% 5.4% 6.8%
Not Employed 5.5% 1.1% 5.3% 1.0%
Retired 23.0% 18.0% 14.2% 8.8%
n 2,325 49 55 53
Annual Household
Income
Less than $10,000 10.6% 8.6% 11.7% 3.3%
$10,000-19,999 17.4% 14.3% 22.7% 5.9%
$20,000-29,999 18.1% 12.7% 13.6% 11.4%
$30,000-44,999 21.7% 26.2% 12.3% 35.6%
$45,000 or More 32.2% 38.1% 39.7% 43.8%
Median $30-34,999 $35-44,999 $30-34,999 $35-44,999
n 2,852 62 73 73
Annual Per Capita
Income
Less than 10,000 26.9% 20.1% 25.8% 19.1%
$10,000-19,999 32.6% 32.2% 30.6% 27.0%
$20,000-29,999 18.8% 22.5% 21.7% 19.5%
$30,000 or More 21.6% 25.2% 21.8% 34.4%
Median $16,249.75 $17,857.14 $17,499.50 $19,999.83
n 2,749 62 72 73
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  15
Among those who spent money on video poker lottery games in the preceding month,
low VL Spenders are older, more likely to be retired, and about average in sex
composition, education and household income.  The median age of low VL Spenders is
45 and 15% are age 65 and older (compared to age 40 and about 10% age 65 and older
for the average VL Players;  see Table 1).  Three-quarters of low VL Spenders are
employed, comparable to the high employment rates of VL Players generally, but 18%
are retired, compared to 13% for all.  Annual household income falls in the $35,000-
44,999 range, with per capita income about $17,860, nearly two-thirds completing high
school or some college, and 51% male -- all quite close to the average VL Player.
Medium VL Spenders are young, more female, and not very well educated, but with
employment and income characteristics similar to other VL Players.  Over half of
medium VL Spenders are aged 30-49, with an additional 15% younger, and just 4% age
65 or more;  median age is 40. This is the only group of VL Players that is over half
female (53%).  Fully four-fifths completed high school or some college;  about 10%
completed college, and about 10% did not finish high school.  Three-quarters are
employed, and 14% are retired, identical to VL Players overall.  The distribution of
household income shows a much greater concentration in the $10,000-19,999 range than
for VL Players generally, but median per capita annual household income is average, at
$17,500.
High VL Spenders are quite different than other VL Players:  they are younger,
predominantly male, highly educated, and high earning.  Two-thirds of high VL Spenders
are 30-49, plus 16% are younger, with a median age of 40.  63% are male.  Fully 26%
have earned bachelor?s degrees or better.  However, another 15% never completed a high
school diploma -- twice as high as VL Players overall.  Fully 83% of high VL Spenders
are employed, and 44% earn $45,000 per year or more.  Annual per capita household
income is the highest of all groups, at $20,000.
Video Lottery Spending and Game Playing Behaviors
In this section of the analysis, we examine how patterns of video poker lottery spending
correspond to where VL Players go to play, when they play, spontaneous versus
deliberate playing, time played, and receptiveness to changes in video poker.  As with
Traditional Lottery Players, we find that high spenders? behavior is quite distinct from
low and medium spenders? behavior.
Two-thirds of low VL spenders play mostly in bars and taverns.  They are also the most
likely VL Player to play in bowling alleys, at 15%.  Low VL spenders are also the mostly
likely to play in one place (83%) and to play 7 days or less per month (100%).  Three-
fifths play only on weekends, and they evenly divide their playing time between 5:00-
8:00 p.m. (38%) and after 8:00 p.m. (38%).
Fully 91% of low spending VL Players do not plan in advance to play, but decide
spontaneously, and 94% go to places mainly to do something besides play video lottery.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  16
Identical to the other VL spending groups, two-fifths of low VL spenders usually have an
idea of how long they will play in advance, and nearly three-quarters have an idea of how
much money they will spend.  Nearly all (94%) play until they use up a predetermined
amount of money rather than a predetermined amount of time.  Nearly three-quarters
(72%) play less than 30 minutes per session.
Medium VL spenders are most likely to play video lottery in bars and taverns (69%), and
most likely to report playing ?someplace else? than bowling alleys, restaurant lounges,
and bars/taverns (15%).  Three-fifths play in just one place, and 37% play in 2 or 3
places.  Nearly all (94%) play 7 days per month or less, and over half play on weekends
only (52%).  Most medium VL spenders play between 5:00-8:00 p.m., but 34% play after
8:00 p.m., and 26% play between noon and 5:00 (the largest group to play in that time
slot).  Over three-quarters usually plan in advance to play (77%) and go to the place to do
something besides play video lottery (81%).  Identical to the other VL spending groups,
two-fifths usually have an idea of how long they will play, 70% have an idea of how
much money they will spend on it, and 80% play until they use up a certain amount of
money, not time.  Just over half (52%) play fewer than 30 minutes when they play, with
another 27% at 30-60 minutes, and one-fifth at an hour or more.  The majority of
Medium VL Players? playing activities would be unaffected by changes:  66% would
play the same amount in alcohol-free environments, 54% would play the same amount in
smoke-free place, and 72% would play the same amount if there were new games.
The majority of high VL spenders play video poker lottery in bars and taverns (63%), but
they are also the most likely to play in restaurant lounges (21%).  They are the least
likely to play in one place only (28%), and the most likely to play in 2-3 places (51%)
and several places (21%).  While close to all low and medium spending VL Players
played fewer than 7 days per month, one-third of high VL spenders played eight days or
more in the previous month.  This group is the most likely to play all days of the week
(34%) and at all times of the day (21%).  The are the least spontaneous players, with
nearly half usually planning in advance to play (46%, plus 12% saying it depends), and a
quarter going to places mainly to play (26%, plus 19% who say they go to places both to
play and do something else). Similar to the other groups, the majority of all VL Players
play to money limits rather than time limits; however, this respondents in this group are
more likely to play until they use up a certain amount of time (15%) or both money and
time (10%).  They also play longer lengths of time, with nearly one third playing an hour
or more per sitting (31%) and half playing 30-59 minutes per sitting.  High VL spenders
are the least potentially responsive to alcohol-free and smoke-free places to play, with
approximately one-third saying these innovations would result in them playing less often;
still, over half say it wouldn?t affect their playing.  This groups is the most potentially
responsive to new types of video lottery games, with 40% saying they would play more
often.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  17
Graph 10:  Where Do You Mostly Play Video Lottery
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=75
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
BAR, TAVERN
RESTAURANT, LOUNGE
BOWLING ALLEY
SOMEWHERE ELSE
63
21
913
7
7
15
9
15
Graph 11:  Number of Different Places to Play Video Lottery
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=75
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 PLACE
2 OR 3 PLACES
SEVERAL PLACES
28
51
37
9
21
8
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  18
Graph 12:  Number of Days Played Video Lottery Last Month
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=75
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1-7 Days
8-14 Days
15 Days or More
68
18
14
Graph 13:  Days of Week Mostly Play Video Lottery
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MONDAYS - THURSDAYS
FRIDAYS - SUNDAYS
WEEKDAYS AND WEEKEND
32
34
52
60
34
23
7
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  19
Graph 14:  Times of Day Mostly Play Video Lottery
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
BEFORE NOON
NOON-5:00PM
5:00-8:00PM
AFTER 8:00PM
ALL DIFFERENT TIMES
21
26
19
20
38
38
36
3438
21
Graph 15:  Usually Plan to Play Video Lottery in Advance
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PLAN IN ADVANCE
DECIDE ONCE THERE
IT VARIES
46
42
77
91
12
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  20
Graph 16:  Usually Go to Play Video Lottery
or Do Something Else
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MAINLY TO PLAY
TO DO SOMETHING ELSE
BOTH
266
55
81
94
19
Graph 17:  Usually Have an Idea of How Long
You Will Play
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
DEPENDS
41
535357
68
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  21
Graph 18:  Usually Have Idea of
How Much Money You Will Spend
by Amount Spent on Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
DEPENDS
78
22
29
24
Graph 19:  Usually Play Video Lottery Until You
Use Up Certain Amount of Time or Money
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MONEY
TIME
BOTH
NEITHER
71
15
6
10
6
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  22
Graph 20:  How Many Minutes Do You Usually Play Video Lottery
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=63
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LESS THAN 30 MINUTES
30 TO 59 MINUTES
60 0R MORE MINUTES
19
50
27
13
31
20
15
Graph 21:  If Video Lottery Was in Alcohol-Free Place
More or Less Likely to Play
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MORE OFTEN
LESS OFTEN
ABOUT THE SAME
IT DEPENDS
7612
2927
15
6366
73
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  23
Graph 22:  If Video Lottery Was in Smoke-Free Place
More or Less Likely to Play
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MORE OFTEN
LESS OFTEN
ABOUT THE SAME
IT DEPENDS
12
35
2113
5254
59
Graph 23:  If Video Lottery Had Different Games
More or Less Likely to Play
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=73
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MORE OFTEN
LESS OFTEN
ABOUT THE SAME
IT DEPENDS
40
7
51
72
71
6
Eating Out as a Measure of Exposure to Video Lottery
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  24
In order to assess the extent to which players and non-players alike are exposed to the
possibility of playing video lottery games, the survey asked respondents ?In the last 4
weeks, how many times did you go to a restaurant, bar, tavern, lounge or private club
where alcohol can be served??  Responses were categorized into 0, 1-3, and 4 or more
times.  The patterns of responses vary significantly with player group categories and with
money spent on the lottery.
Graph 44:  Number of Times Went to Place
That Serves Alcohol Last Month
by Type of Lottery Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=513
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ZERO
1 TO 3
4 OR MORE
11
32
34
37
35 57
3436
23
Over half of VL Players (57%) go to places that serve alcohol 4 or more times per month,
compared to about one-third of TL Players and Lapsed Players, and just 23% of Non-
players.
Among those who spent money on lottery games (traditional or video) in the month
preceding the survey, 57% of high spenders, 43% of medium spenders, and 36% of low
spenders go to places that serve alcohol 4 or more times per month.  Among VL Players
only, fully 88% of high spenders, 58% of medium spenders, and 66% of low spenders
went to places that serve alcohol 4 or more times per month.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  25
Graph 45:  Number of Times Went to Place
That Serves Alcohol Last Month
by Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
High, n=359
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ZERO
1 TO 3
4 OR MORE
16
28
3039
57
43
36
Graph 46:  Number of Times Went to Place
That Serves Alcohol Last Month
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=75
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ZERO
1 TO 3
4 OR MORE
12
39
88
58
66
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  26
Results of the Multivariate Analyses
The preceding analyses have focused upon the bivariate relationships between the four
player groups and various demographic, attitudinal, spending and behavioral variables.
The purpose of this part of the analysis is to assess the net effects of the independent
variables on player status.  Specifically, what are the net effects of key independent
variables in determining who is a TL Player compared to a VL Player?  What determines
the differences between VL Players and Non-players, and TL Players and Non-players?
What determines the differences between VL Players and Lapsed Players, and between
TL Players and Lapsed Players?
In order to answer these questions, we ran five multivariate regression equations in which
player status (the dependent variable) was coded zero or one.  Each equation compares
two player groups:  TL Players to VL Players, VL Players to Non-players, TL Players to
Non-players, VL Players to Lapsed Players, and TL Players to Lapsed Players.  For each
equation, the following independent variables were used:  Number in household,
presence of children in household, household income, never eats out in places where
alcohol is served, age, sex, education, labor force status, and attitudes toward the lottery
in general.
All of the equations were highly statistically significant, and in all equations the effects
of attitudes were greater than the effects of demographic and household characteristics.
Each paragraph below describes the results of one of the equations.
What distinguishes TL Players from VL Players?  TL Players are significantly more
likely to be negative and neutral in their attitudes toward the lottery than VL Players.
They are also significantly more likely to have children, eat at home, be older, be female,
and have higher levels of education than VL Players.  The results also show that
employed and retired persons are significantly more likely than non-employed persons to
play video lottery than traditional lottery games.  The effects of household income,
employment, and household size are insignificant.
What distinguishes VL Players from Non-players?  VL Players are significantly more
positive in their attitudes toward the lottery, more likely to eat in places where alcohol is
consumed, younger, less educated, and more likely to be employed.  Household income,
household size, the presence of children, sex, and retirement have no significant effects.
What distinguishes TL Players from Non-players?  TL Players are significantly more
positive in their lottery attitudes, have higher household incomes, are more likely to be
employed, and have lower education.  The other independent variables were
insignificant.
What distinguishes VL Players from Lapsed Players?  Again, VL Players are much more
strongly positive in their lottery attitudes.  In addition, they are more likely to eat at
places where alcohol is served, have lower education, have higher household incomes,
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  27
and be male.  While the effects of these variables are statistically significant, the effects
of attitudes are much stronger. The other independent variables were insignificant.
What distinguishes TL Players from Lapsed Players?  TL players? attitudes toward the
lottery are significantly more positive than Lapsed Players?, but this effect is less strong
than in the other comparisons.  TL Players significantly more often eat at home, have
higher incomes, and are older.  The results also show that retired persons are significantly
more likely than non-employed persons to be Lapsed Players than TL Players.  The
effects of the other independent variables are insignificant.
In summary, the only variable which consistently significantly differentiated the player
groups was lottery attitudes.  The effects of household (size, composition, income) were
inconsistent -- sometimes significant and sometimes not.  The effects of demographics
(age, sex, education, labor force status)  were more effective, as was exposure to video
lottery by frequenting places that serve alcohol. It is important to look at multivariate
equations because they take multiple, variables into account simultaneously; as a result,
some bivariate relationships end up accounted for by other independent variables in the
equation. For instance, the strong bivariate relationship we observed between income and
Video Lottery Player status was diminished by taking the effect of sex into account  since
males tend to have higher incomes than females.
Indian Gaming
Awareness of Indian Gaming
Over four-fifths of the survey sample has heard of Indian gaming, including 93% of VL
Players, 89% of TL Players, 88% of Lapsed Players, and 80% of Non-players.  Feelings
about Indian gaming vary significantly by player type, with half of VL Players favorable,
nearly two-fifths of TL Players and Lapsed Players favorable, and one-fifth of Non-
players favorable.  Approximately one-third of each group is neutral.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  28
Graph 24:  Ever Heard of Indian Gaming
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=513
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
93
7
11
20
Graph 25:  General Feelings About Indian Gaming
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=466
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FAVORABLE
NEUTRAL
UNFAVORABLE
50
36
3831
31
14
25
32
48
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  29
Visits to Indian Gaming Centers by Player Group
VL Players were the most likely to have visited Indian gaming centers (25%), followed
by Lapsed Players (19%), TL Players (14%), and Non-players (7%).
Graph 26:  Ever Visited an Indian Gaming Center
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=477
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
25
75
86
81
93
Among those who visited Indian gaming centers, significant proportions bet money.
Fully 69% of VL Players, 51% of Lapsed Players, 39% of TL Players, and even one-fifth
of Non-players bet money when they visited an Indian gaming center.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  30
Graph 27:  Bet Money at Indian Gaming Center
in Past 12 Months
by Type of Lottery Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=121
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
69
31
61
49
79
Persons who had not yet visited an Indian gaming center were asked how interested they
were in visiting one, and, if interested, a series of questions about the nature of that visit.
VL Players are most interested in trying out Indian gaming, followed by TL Players and
Lapsed Players.  Three-fifths of VL Players are interested in trying them out, along with
nearly two-fifths of TL Players and Lapsed Players.  Just one-tenth of Non-players are
interested.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  31
Graph 28:  How Interested Are You in Indian Gaming Centers
by Type of Lottery Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=436
Traditional, n=868
Lapsed, n=356
Non-Player, n=749
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VERY INTERESTED
SOMEWHAT INTERESTED
NOT VERY INTERESTED
NOT INTERESTED
196
41
27
31
8
26
2720
13
14
36
43
77
Among those who had not yet visited an Indian gaming center but who are interested in
doing so, roughly one-third would go out of their way to visit one, with VL Players more
likely to go out of their way (37%) and Non-players least likely (22%).  Roughly two-
fifths of all persons in players groups who said they would go out of their way to try out
an Indian gaming center said they would go 100 miles or more out of their way to do so.
Graph 29:  Would Go Out of Way to Visit
Indian Gaming Center
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=405
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
37
63
7069
78
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  32
Graph 30:  How Many Miles Would You Drive
to Visit an Indian Gaming Center
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=151
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LESS THAN 50 MILES
50 TO 99 MILES
100 OR MORE MILES
30
2835
41
28
42
33
3738
Roughly two-thirds of all player groups would plan these trips in advance (with VL
Players and Lapsed Players somewhat more likely to plan in advance, at 70%).  Roughly
half would stay overnight on these visits (again with VL Players and Lapsed Players
more likely to stay overnight, at 54% and 49%, respectively).
Graph 31:  Would Trip to Indian Gaming Center
Be Planned in Advance
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=155
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PLANNED IN ADVANCE
SPUR OF THE MOMENT
OTHER
70
28
33
25
31
7
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  33
Graph 32:  How Likely Would Stay Overnight
at Indian Gaming Center
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=159
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VERY LIKELY
SOMEWHAT LIKELY
NOT VERY LIKELY
NOT AT ALL LIKELY
DEPENDS
34
20
11
17
16
23
23
3433
21
20
1922
85
Visits to Indian Gaming Centers by Lottery Spending Levels
Persons who have spent high and medium amounts of money on lottery games are more
likely to have visited Indian gaming centers and bet money there than Lapsed Players and
Non-players.  Moreover, if they have not visited yet, high and medium spenders are more
interested in visiting and going out of their way to do so.
Among those who spent  ?high? amounts of money on the lottery in the month preceding
the survey ($22 or more),  29% have visited Indian gaming centers, compared to 22% of
medium spenders and 15% of low spenders.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  34
Graph 33:  Ever Visited an Indian Gaming Center
by Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
High, n=326
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
29
71
78
85
Among those who visited Indian gaming centers, three-quarters of high lottery spenders
spent money there, and roughly half of medium and low spenders did (45% and 51%,
respectively).
Graph 34:  Bet Money at Indian Gaming Center
in Past 12 Months
by Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
High, n=95
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
75
25
55
49
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  35
Lottery players who have not yet visited Indian gaming centers are more interested in
visiting them than most Lapsed Players and Non-players, and interest varies directly with
amount spent.  Two-thirds of high lottery spenders who have not yet visited Indian
gaming centers are interested in doing so, as well as nearly half of medium spenders and
37% of low spenders.
Graph 35:  How Interested Are You in Indian Gaming Centers
by Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
High, n=299
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VERY INTERESTED
SOMEWHAT INTERESTED
NOT VERY INTERESTED
NOT AT ALL INTERESTE
24
44
33
30
18
27
30
14
25
33
Among those who have not yet visited Indian gaming centers who are interested in doing
so, their willingness to go out of their way to visit one also varies directly with lottery
spending sums.  That is, nearly half of high spenders would go out of their way,
compared to 35% of medium spenders and 21% of low spenders.  44% of high spenders
would go 100 miles or more out of their way to visit an Indian gaming center, while
about one-third of low and medium spenders would go 100 miles or more.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  36
Graph 36:  Would Go Out of Way to Visit
Indian Gaming Center
by Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
High, n=280
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
48
52
65
79
Graph 37:  How Many Miles Would You Drive
to Visit an Indian Gaming Center
by Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
High, n=131
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LESS THAN 50 MILES
50 TO 99 MILES
100 OR MORE MILES
28
28
43
39
44
3231
The majority of lottery players who visited an Indian gaming center would plan their trip
in advance ( 72% of high and medium spenders, as well as 55% of low spenders).  The
likelihood of spending the night there varies directly with lottery spending levels:  almost
two-thirds of high spenders would be likely to spend the night, compared with nearly half
of medium spenders and 37% of low spenders.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  37
Graph 38:  Would Trip to Indian Gaming Center
Be Planned in Advance
by Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
High, n=136
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PLANNED IN ADVANCE
SPUR OF THE MOMENT
OTHER
72
26
45
Graph 39:  How Likely Would Stay Overnight
at Indian Gaming Center
by Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
High, n=138
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VERY LIKELY
SOMEWHAT LIKELY
NOT VERY LIKELY
NOT AT ALL LIKELY
DEPENDS
45
19
209
13
32
27
20
16
27
9
Indian gaming activities would not affect the majority of players? spending on traditional
lottery and video lottery games: among traditional players, 74% of  high spenders, 59%
of medium spenders, and 63% of low spenders would spend about the same, regardless of
their Indian gaming activities; video lottery players were even more intractable: 77% of
high spenders, 94% of medium spenders, and 80% of low spenders said that Indian
gaming would not change their video lottery playing activities.  Far fewer players
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  38
responded that Indian gaming would change their lottery playing behavior. Among
traditional lottery players, 23% of high spenders, 30% of medium spenders, and 29% of
low spenders think they would spend more on the lottery overall if they played at Indian
gaming centers.  Video lottery players are less likely to spend more on video lottery as a
result of Indian gaming: 22% of high spenders, 5% of medium spenders, and 11% of low
spenders think they would spend more. Very few respondents of either player type said
that Indian gaming would reduce their lottery spending.
Graph 40:  How Would Indian Gaming
Affect Lottery Spending
by Amount Spent on Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Lottery Last Month
High, n=136
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Would spend...
MORE
LESS
ABOUT THE SAME
23
117
74
59
63
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  39
Graph 41:  How Would Indian Gaming
Affect Video Lottery Spending
by Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
Amount Spent on Video Lottery Last Month
High, n=134
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Would spend...
MORE
LESS
ABOUT THE SAME
225
8
77
94
80
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  40
Beliefs about Prize Sizes at Indian Gaming Centers
Roughly half of the members of the survey sample do not know if prizes at Indian
gaming centers are larger or smaller than prizes at casinos outside of Oregon, and fewer
than 10% think the prizes are larger.  This varies substantially, however, by player group.
VL Players are the most knowledgeable, with just 43% don?t know, 25% believing prizes
are about the same, 27% believing they are smaller, and just 6% believing they are larger.
Three-fifths of VL Players and Lapsed players don?t know, and 76% of Non-players
don?t know.
Graph 42:  Think Prizes at Indian Gaming Centers
are Larger than Outside Oregon
by Type of Player
Type of Player
Video Lottery, n=477
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LARGER
SMALLER
ABOUT THE SAME
DON'T KNOW
6
27
1618
25
2116
13
43
6164
76
Among those who have spent money on lottery games in the month preceding the survey
(traditional or video lottery games), knowledge about the size of prizes at Indian gaming
centers is somewhat higher, at roughly half, but again fewer than 10% think prizes are
higher.  About one-fifth of low- , medium-, and high-spenders think prizes at Indian
gaming centers are about the same as prizes at casinos outside of Oregon.  Between 19%
and 26% of the three groups think they are smaller.
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  41
Graph 43:  Think Prizes at Indian Gaming Centers
are Larger than Outside Oregon
by Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
Amount Spent on All Lottery Games Last Month
High, n=326
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LARGER
SMALLER
ABOUT THE SAME
DON'T KNOW
9
23
2619
20
23
19
4849
60
Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon Page  42
Technical Note on Variation in ?n?s? on Tables and Graphs:
Note that the "n's" on tables and graphs may vary somewhat, due to missing data
(refusals and don't know responses) and due to skip logic built into the survey interview.
Missing data is more likely to occur on difficult or sensitive survey questions, e.g., those
that require a lot of effort for respondents or those that are regarded as personal in nature.
Some respondents, for example, simply do not know certain pieces of information, such
as their annual household income and are not capable of finding out;  others regard
questions on things like income as too personal to report, even in an anonymous
interview.
The general skip logic of the survey instrument also results in different n?s, depending
upon respondents? answers to questions.  The next two paragraphs define, in general
terms, the skip logic through the lottery and gaming questions.  Variable names are
reported in capital letters.
Respondents who did not engage traditional lottery playing in the previous 5 years
(LOTT5) were skipped past specific traditional lottery questions to questions about video
poker lottery (VL3).  Persons who played traditional lottery games in the past 5 years
were asked if they played them in the past 1 year (LOTT1);  if yes, they were asked
questions about playing and spending on those games, and if no they were skipped to
video lottery questions (VL3).  Persons who played video poker lottery in the previous 3
years (VL3) were asked if they had played in the previous 1 year (VL1) and the previous
month (VLMO);  if yes, the survey continued with a detailed series of questions about
their playing and spending.  Those who did not play video lottery in the previous 3 years
were skipped to non-player questions.  Those who played 2 or 3 years ago, but not in the
last 1 year were asked questions about why they stopped.  Those who never played video
poker lottery were asked if they had ever heard of it.
All potential playership routes through the survey questions on traditional and video
poker lottery games re-converged at the Indian gaming questions (INDHEAR).
Respondents who never heard of Indian gaming were skipped to EATOUT (?In the last
four weeks, how many times did you go to a restaurant, bar, tavern, lounge, or private
club where alcohol can be served??) and the concluding demographic questions.  Those
who had heard of Indian gaming were asked if they had ever visited an Indian gaming
center, and if yes, questions about it;  if no, respondents were asked how interested they
were in visiting one and, if interested, if they would go out of their way to visit one, and
if yes, how far out of their way they would go.  All respondents who had heard of Indian
gaming, including those not interested and those interested but who would not go out of
their way to visit a center, re-converged at the question INDGEN (?Do you think prizes
at Indian gaming centers are generally larger, generally smaller, or about the same as
casinos outside Oregon??).
These skip logic patterns were designed to keep the survey as conversational and
appropriate for respondents? unique experiences with the lottery and gaming.  They result
naturally in different n?s for different variables.