Poker players are the worst problem gamblers?

[ChipRich]

I scored 24. Thats like 89% SHIP IT

How did you score on this?

http://www.problemgambling.ca/EN/ResourcesForProfessionals/Pages/DSMIVCriteriaPathologicalGambling.aspx

hes fucked.

[GreekStein]

I didn't score quite as high as I'd have liked. I don't suppose anyone could lend me a few % could they? Just til tomorrow

[titaniumbean]

I didn't score quite as high as I'd have liked. I don't suppose anyone could lend me a few % could they? Just til tomorrow

just play some thought games with Nagi. He seemed like an ATM!

[piestack]

i scored three.
based on advice in this thread i am retiring.

[MC]

6. Has gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?

Never=0    Sometimes=1    Most of the time=2     Almost always=3


333333333333333333333333333333333333333

[Longy]

6. Has gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?

Never=0    Sometimes=1    Most of the time=2     Almost always=3


333333333333333333333333333333333333333

I scored 5 on this, I think.

[thetank]

My problem with this study is that they're not comapring like with like. Let me take you on an abstract journey to justify this statement.

Consider the ability to lie to yourself and imagine it as quantifiable attribute, we shall call it delutitude.

The average delutitude of a poker player may well be very different from the average delutitude of an online slots player.

This is not a wild premise, as members of this forum will know, the nature of poker (particularly it's most popular form : no limit holdem tournaments) is that players regularly experience events that their intuition will tell them means they are a long term winner (such as being continually knocked out of tournaments when holding the best hand) when the reality may well be they are a long term loser. A regular person with low delutitude could easily fall in to this trap and be a long term donater at the pokers.

I think it's fair to assume that higher delutitude is necessary to be a long term donater at online slots. Consequently, you'd expect to see a higher average delutitude among this group, if indeed such a thing was possible to measure.

The other, and in all likelyhood more significant, factor affecting the skewing of delutitudes between poker players and online slot players is that there are a lot of reasons why people play poker. I suspect that the competitive challenge, the social aspect and dreams of being on TV are not what motivate online slot players to play and keep playing.

So then, we have our much higher average delutitude among slot players when compared to poker players.

Consider a problem gambler, we shall call him Alexei Ivanovich. In order to score highly on this test, Alexei must not be lying when he answers the questions and this includes that he not be lying to himself.

It would be reasonable to assume that the higher Alexei's delutitude is, the greater the chance we won't get a fair reading from the test.

When all this is coupled with the relatively low threshold by which this test designates people as having problems, it would seem that recreational gamblers who answer honestly are as likely to be counted as having a problem than people with a genuine problem who are telling some porkie pies.

[thetank]

There's two other things that I think should be considered if you were to want to take the figures from the study to use as evidence of which games bring about the most social problems.

The first is that you should look at the fact that poker does create a significant number of long term winners.

Although the number is small when compared to the long term losers at poker, it should be significantly larger than the long term winners at other games mentioned.

As evidenced by the posts in this thread. The mentality necessary and the lifestyle that a winning poker player follows will mean they will almost all produce a score of over 8 on the test.

It's not that they won't (as a group) suffer some of the bad shit that goes with problem gambling like relationship and health problems.

However, when it comes to the really bad shit that problem gambling brings about for the person and the people around them, you'd think a good many of them would be related to not having any coin.

Being a winning player and having coin-a-plenty at all times of day should mean that problem gambling for some is no more of a problem than a high stress regular job.

As I said above, while these winners will be few, they should be considered when crunching the numbers and you could even argue that this is another reason why the study was not really comparing like with like.

[SuuPRlim]

I only scored 16

really let myself down on the last two, I've always lived with people who have lots of money...
 

[thetank]

The last reason is an example of a scenario that may or may not be the case, but it's hypothetical existance stands in the way of the numbers from the study offering proof that poker is a worse form of gambling than others. (Not that that's what the study says, but that's how people may choose to interpret it)

Problem gamblers could migrate towards poker. Entering at online slots or roulette machines in the bookies, and eventually making their way to poker and staying there.
 
This may mean that poker has more problem gamblers, maybe even a higher proportion than other games.

At the same time though, poker could be a far less ruinous game for them to play, both on a personal level and a societal level.

Poker could be the cannabis and house games the heroin. Why fuck with the cannabis?

[Claw75]

Problem gamblers could migrate towards poker. Entering at online slots or roulette machines in the bookies, and eventually making their way to poker and staying there.
 
This may mean that poker has more problem gamblers, maybe even a higher proportion than other games.

i was going to say this, but in much dumber language, obv.

I only scored 2.  i'm rubbish.

[Jon MW]

The last reason is an example of a scenario that may or may not be the case, but it's hypothetical existance stands in the way of the numbers from the study offering proof that poker is a worse form of gambling than others. (Not that that's what the study says, but that's how people may choose to interpret it)
...

I cba to write what Tank wrote - also couldn't really say it all without using formulas, Tank's way is much better - I was wondering if some politics could be at play in this report?

Pretty easy to argue that poker being more 'dangerous' means it should have a punitive tax put on it
And live slots being relatively less dangerous means you can allow casinos to have more of them

Or is it just bad stats for the sake of it, and they don't care what conclusions are drawn from it as long as they get paid for it?

[AlunB]

I think it raises an interesting question. Does poker players 'healthy' attitude to risk mean that they then are prone to becoming problem gamblers outside of poker?

It's also worth pointing out that I really dug those numbers out of the report, and they were not highlighted in the press release or in any news story I read. I just thought they were interesting.

Online gambling in general and casino advertising on TV are the bogeymen at the moment I think.

[AlunB]

There's two other things that I think should be considered if you were to want to take the figures from the study to use as evidence of which games bring about the most social problems.

The first is that you should look at the fact that poker does create a significant number of long term winners.

Although the number is small when compared to the long term losers at poker, it should be significantly larger than the long term winners at other games mentioned.

As evidenced by the posts in this thread. The mentality necessary and the lifestyle that a winning poker player follows will mean they will almost all produce a score of over 8 on the test.

It's not that they won't (as a group) suffer some of the bad shit that goes with problem gambling like relationship and health problems.

However, when it comes to the really bad shit that problem gambling brings about for the person and the people around them, you'd think a good many of them would be related to not having any coin.

Being a winning player and having coin-a-plenty at all times of day should mean that problem gambling for some is no more of a problem than a high stress regular job.

As I said above, while these winners will be few, they should be considered when crunching the numbers and you could even argue that this is another reason why the study was not really comparing like with like.

Ask any online operator and they will tell you that the amount of winning players who earn enough to make a meaningful contribution to their lifestyle is very very low indeed.

[AlunB]

Hang on buddy, just trying to claw back some of the days losses on the hunter chase at Folkestone.

This wins the thread