Harris, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). The impact of speed of play in gambling on psychological and behavioural factors: A critical review. Journal of gambling studies, 34(2), 393-412.
Chase, H. W., & Clark, L. (2010). Gambling severity predicts midbrain response to near-miss outcomes. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(18), 6180-6187.
Regarding near-misses, which was what I think it was odd about the previous post, it's certainly uncommon. I certainly never seen a game which emulates that like a slot machine does.
That being said, I don't also consider you getting a rare item, just not the one you want it, as a near-miss either.
I'll read the paper later.
Yes they can and for the average trading card game it would probably take about a year for the new odds to fully propagate across the retail channels. But that's beside the point. The manufacturer has no idea what was in your previous pack, it doesn't know how long you went without a win. How many packs you buy on average. It can't space it out, or see which card you are still missing or which card you have been eyeing for some time, or offer you free packs or guaranteed wins just as they measure you becoming disengaged. There's no tailor made anything, only the complete set for the entire world.
As a lot of your previous complaints, depends if you trust the maker or not. Computer based RNG depends on the previous outcome for starters.
Digital based games also allow for players to play for free (and get very, very far) due to those strategies of giving players currency, free cards/units, which aren't present in the physical game. They can keep players engaged and, honestly, that's not a bad thing if the game is good. A lot of them also are capping spending (either by step up mechanics or change that specific item/unit within the game for a resource that is not always paid).
Not according to the Dutch Gaming Authority who presumably knows a thing or two about proper gambling warnings and investigated it.
And the England one ended up with a different result.