Gambling Addiction discussion

[JHV]

How do you think gambling addiction is diagnosed? By asking the patient about their gambling habits and how it impacts their lives (or as you put it "how they feel about their gambling").

When you come from the POV that all -EV gambling is problem gambling, then I don't see any point in discussing this. Almost every pastime costs money and is -EV, but that does not in itself make them societal problems.

To me, and the professional community, problem gambling is gambling that causes financial and/or social problems for the gambler. That people in your view waste their money on -EV activities is not in itself a social problem that society needs to concern itself with, IMO.

No, you're right - you misunderstood me (perhaps due to my failure to communicate my position properly).

As you say, "problem gambling is gambling that causes financial and/or social problems for the gambler". 100% correct.

I say, "...if you make $50,000/annum and spend $5/week on a lottery ticket, obviously you don't have a problem."

It's where you draw on the line - and that is subjective. I used some figures in my post which clearly explains that, no matter where you draw the line, the 1% figure is completely lol.

As to your apparent opinion that "asking gamblers about how they feel about their gambling and whether it is a problem" is a logical approach to assessing an issue...I apologise if this sounds arrogant or rude...but we'll have to end our debate there. I am unable to participate further. As you clearly (you damn lucky bastird :P) have zero clue as to how addicts or people affected by 'vice' personally view their activities.

[spearmaster]

All gambling that is negative EV (expected value) is, by definition, *problem* gambling. Clearly, if you make $50,000/annum after tax and wager $5/week on a lottery ticket, you do NOT have a gambling problem. But you have to understand the first sentence of this paragraph. Negative expectation gambling, despite efforts by the gambling industry to label the activity as 'entertainment' or 'leisure activity', is problem gambling. You are handing money to another party on every -EV bet.

I cannot agree with this. The survey I linked above has very specific methods for determining who is classified as a problem gambler - and yet it still showed up 20% of those surveyed.

-EV bets are not problem gambling. -EV bets are gambling. If bets weren't -EV or at least 50/50, that wouldn't be gambling now, would it?

[JHV]

-EV bets are gambling. If bets weren't -EV or at least 50/50, that wouldn't be gambling now, would it?

Um, no. lol.

Trust me, I was not "lucky" to make $1mil playing poker. I was actually extremely unlucky not to make $3mil during that time and can prove that with graphs and statistical evidence. Not that I care too much, as evidence by my *almost* successful demolition of that mil in the last few months on house edge.

Many wagers are neutral or +EV. Some are HUGELY +EV. Like when my friends play me for $1000 Monopoly games on pogo.com

[spearmaster]

Um, no. lol.

Trust me, I was not "lucky" to make $1mil playing poker. I was actually extremely unlucky not to make $3mil during that time and can prove that with graphs and statistical evidence. Not that I care too much, as evidence by my *almost* successful demolition of that mil in the last few months on house edge.

Many wagers are neutral or +EV. Some are HUGELY +EV. Like when my friends play me for $1000 Monopoly games on pogo.com

LOL.

As you probably know, poker is generally considered by many to be a game of skill, not gambling... the only time you gamble at poker is when you bluff! The rest of the time it should be a good knowledge of the various odds, as well as knowing your opponent. (ok that's a bit of a stretch but I was referring to casino gambling).

But I will allow that there are certain times when gambling can be +EV... just not at a casino! (excluding bonuses, of course)

Anyhow - I agree with your perception on Australian problem gambling. Pokies are a major scourge.

BTW - for non-Australians - pokies are actually the 5-reel, multiple-line video slots you've been playing online for years now! The only difference is that you'll find better odds online than you will at a pokie parlour!

[JHV]

As you probably know, poker is generally considered by many to be a game of skill, not gambling... the only time you gamble at poker is when you bluff! The rest of the time it should be a good knowledge of the various odds, as well as knowing your opponent. (ok that's a bit of a stretch but I was referring to casino gambling).

Due to rake, the actual % of long-term winners in poker is a lot lower than most realise - extensive statistical data show less than 5-7% of longterm players win at poker (5% rake is pretty hard to overcome).

Whilst poker may, for some, be a game of skill - the simple fact is that, despite the industry's attempts to label it as such - it's just like most house advantage games for the collective playing group.

Whilst what you say may be accurate for generic poker games in the past or Micro-Stakes limits now, the current nature of online SSNL and MSNL is such that you have to be somewhat brilliant to show +EV.

The HUGE numbers of players who have established ridiculously high levels of skill combined with a rapidly shrinking player field mean that if you can show + results over a decent sample (300k hands or more) at 100nl or higher, you're something of a genius, in every possible way.

[spearmaster]

Due to rake, the actual % of long-term winners in poker is a lot lower than most realise - extensive statistical data show less than 5-7% of longterm players win at poker (5% rake is pretty hard to overcome).

Whilst poker may, for some, be a game of skill - the simple fact is that, despite the industry's attempts to label it as such - it's just like most house advantage games for the collective playing group.

Whilst what you say may be accurate for generic poker games in the past or Micro-Stakes limits now, the current nature of online SSNL and MSNL is such that you have to be somewhat brilliant to show +EV.

The HUGE numbers of players who have established ridiculously high levels of skill combined with a rapidly shrinking player field mean that if you can show + results over a decent sample (300k hands or more) at 100nl or higher, you're something of a genius, in every possible way.

Well, as I am nowhere near playing at 100nl... I'll defer to you on that I still have to adapt my limit poker skills to playing NL.

Anyhow, rake isn't a house advantage - it is collected as a percentage of bets in the pot, up to a certain maximum, regardless of whether you win or lose - and in a land-based poker room, it is tantamount to a service charge.

Ultimately, it is impossible to predict EV at poker because it is dependent on a wide range of factors including your skill. Thus, EV doesn't really exist in poker. Certainly, your "EV" would be better than my "EV", if you see what I mean.

[JHV]

Ultimately, it is impossible to predict EV at poker because it is dependent on a wide range of factors including your skill. Thus, EV doesn't really exist in poker. Certainly, your "EV" would be better than my "EV", if you see what I mean.

Kinda correct, yes. EV can be accurately estimated somewhat easily in terms of whether it exists in a + or - form.

But to accurately estimate the level of +/- (or even inaccurately estimate it) is nigh on impossible because, even with HUGE sample sizes, the results are no longer valid due to the changing nature of the literally hundreds of variables.

To clarify, over my first 50,000 hands of 1000nl, I ran at 10bb/100 (this is ridiculous winrate, fyi). Over my 2nd 50,000 hands, despite being 10x the player I was in my first 50k, I ran at 0bb/100. Over the next 500,000 hands, my overall winrate came down to something like 3ptbb/100 (an extremely good winrate for that sample).

However, by the time you play half a million hands, so many variables have changed, your (even recent) historical results are value-less. Your opponents may collectively get a GREAT deal more talented, your style of play might have been broken down and effectively negated on endless online poker forums, your psychological mindset has completely changed (whether you wish it to or not), etc, etc, etc.

The only people who are able to get accurate winrates for online poker are botrunners who might have hundreds of little bots playing millions of SSNL or micro-stakes hands a week. Therefore, they're able to build up huge (and therefore statistically relevant) sample sizes in an extremely short period of time against the same opponents - and negating all emotional/psychological variables.

[Jasminebed]

I just want to make a quick comment on defining problem gambling as a percentage of income. The lady I spoke with briefly went over some of the kinds of questions used to determine "problem" gambling, and they had much more to do with the kind of impact gambling was having in your life...problems at work, in relationships, worrying about being able to gamble, stressed out when you can't gamble, stuff like that.

My gal pal Shelly who accompanies on some of my land-based trips, thinks I'm silly to spend so much every month gambling, when instead I could spend a week a couple of times a year soused on a Cuban beach.

My ex-husband spend a much larger part of his disposable income on comics than I did on bingo.

I know quite a few woman who spend my gambling budget on hair and nails instead.

Money is not really how you define gambling addiction.

Scooter, I am recovering from major surgery and I don't have a scanner, but I'll call again and try to get an address so you may get in touch with them directly. They seemed most helpful and cooperative, and I told them why I was asking for this information.

[JHV]

I just want to make a quick comment on defining problem gambling as a percentage of income. The lady I spoke with briefly went over some of the kinds of questions used to determine "problem" gambling, and they had much more to do with the kind of impact gambling was having in your life...problems at work, in relationships, worrying about being able to gamble, stressed out when you can't gamble, stuff like that.

My gal pal Shelly who accompanies on some of my land-based trips, thinks I'm silly to spend so much every month gambling, when instead I could spend a week a couple of times a year soused on a Cuban beach.

My ex-husband spend a much larger part of his disposable income on comics than I did on bingo.

I know quite a few woman who spend my gambling budget on hair and nails instead.

Money is not really how you define gambling addiction.

Scooter, I am recovering from major surgery and I don't have a scanner, but I'll call again and try to get an address so you may get in touch with them directly. They seemed most helpful and cooperative, and I told them why I was asking for this information.

Oh please DON'T put yourself out!! Seriously! I was just planning on tearing their 'arguments' apart lol

Hope you get better soon. I've had surgery twice and got unlimited (I think?) morphine twice. Both times, I knew God loved me. Or that doctors freak out when you scream for "MORE MORPHINE STAT!!!!" - it's probably 50/50. My point is, I hope you have morphine.

Whilst I do not disagree with anything you say about expenditure, I (respectfully) believe you have completely missed the obvious point I was making - specifically, that addicts and gamblers are not historically known for being objective about their behaviour. This makes them an unreliable source when you're looking into problem gambling.

1. "Do you have a problem?"

"No."

2. "Do you have a problem?"

"No."

(multiply by 20,000 times....)

"Our study has shown that 0.00% of adults have a gambling problem. This result has a 98% confidence interval with +/- 0.02 margin for error."

I envy, seriously seriously envy, anyone that cannot see this hilariously common-sense point. As it means you have never struggled with addiction or vice or behavioral problems of any kind. You lucky saints...

[dominique]

Well, as far as I know all of the gambling help programs see it the way Jasmine describes.

Most of these programs have a super success rate, so they can't be all wrong.

Like with any addict, the addict him/herself needs to want to change and usually has to hit rock bottom. That is a given, and while these programs are talking about reforming addicts, you are talking about people who are addicted and not ready to attempt to stop.

There is a world of difference, and this applies to all addicts, gamblers, alcoholics, drug addicts, smokers, joggers with ruined cartilage, extreme sports/adrenalin addicts, sugar addicts, etc etc there are a lot of things people get addicted to. Every one of these will not be receptive to giving up the addictive behavior until it hurts real bad.