Gambling Addiction discussion

[JHV]

Well, I made a couple of phone calls today, and managed to get some statistics.

3.4 percent of the general population are considered to have moderate to severe gambling problems.

4.8 percent of the gambling population are considered to have moderate to severe gambling problems.

If only the "severe" group is considered, then it is about 1 percent of the general population.

The Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre is funded through gambling revenues in Ontario, together with help and treatment programs.

If anyone wants more information on the specifics of the studies, or the methodology, PM me and I will try to get what you need.

I'm interested in the specifics, if it's not a hassle for you, that is?

I think I disagree with how the 'experts' are distinguishing between addiction and problem gambling.

I know drug addicts who are 100% addicted who live completely functional lives (i.e. doctors, lawyers) - their families wouldn't have a clue they even take hard drugs, let alone aware they are and have been addicted for many years.

I see 'addiction' as being unable to control your actions as they relate to xxx. If you define 'addiction' as being "unable to be modified without treatment aimed at complete elimination of the behaviour"....well, I think that's a little silly (personal opinion). For some months of this year, I was technically ADDICTED to online casino gambling (losing hundreds of thousands in the process), but I knew at any point, I could stop - and I have. Without treatment. This does not mean I was not addicted in the meantime - I certainly was. I just didn't care about the damage until bankruptcy loomed on the horizon as a legitimate possibility.

--------

Also, I made a mistake of lumping Australia with the US before. In Australia, we have more pokies per capita than any country in the world. Almost every single pub/club/bar has rows upon rows of pokies - I'm not talking video poker machines, these are like "slots" - and, in Australia, most slots have 13% house advantage. The numbers of people addicted to slots in Australia would blow you away - it's actually an issue which has spiraled completely out of control, but the state governments rely so heavily on the huge tax revenues generated by the the pokies industry, that fixing the problem becomes hugely complicated.

The sportsbetting (specifically racing, trots, greyhounds) culture in Australia is also probably the most powerful (of all the countries in the world). It's a national pastime.

To claim that only 1% of the > 18 yr old population in Australia is "addicted" to gambling is just hilarious. I realise US/Canada/UK/Europe are in a different boat - but I still think that 1% figure for those countries is very much lol (especially the UK, where betting shops are on every street corner - and online gambling is completely legal and regulated).

 

[deucebag]

Also, I made a mistake of lumping Australia with the US before. In Australia, we have more pokies per capita than any country in the world. Almost every single pub/club/bar has rows upon rows of pokies - I'm not talking video poker machines, these are like "slots" - and, in Australia, most slots have 13% house advantage. The numbers of people addicted to slots in Australia would blow you away -
To claim that only 1% of the > 18 yr old population in Australia is "addicted" to gambling is just hilarious. I realise US/Canada/UK/Europe are in a different boat - but I still think that 1% figure for those countries is very much lol (especially the UK, where betting shops are on every street corner - and online gambling is completely legal and regulated).

It would be interesting to hear the basis for your sweeping and definitive conclusions. According to the survey I have linked below, percentage of problem gamblers in Australia is 1.6%.

Old / Expired Link

 

[spearmaster]

Deucebag, your link is for South Australia, which is one of the least densely populated states in Australia, Adelaide being its largest city.

I haven't seen recent figures for Australia, but from past knowledge I know that pokies are a huge problem. When I moderated a session between Betfair and the Australian Racing Board in 2003 at a conference, I actually studied the figures in advance, as well as visiting a few different locations. As far as I can recall, the percentage of problem gamblers was significantly higher than the number quoted by your South Australian report.

If I recall correctly, that number was somewhere around 8%. This is a huge number - I also recall that Australia was said to have the worst gambling problem amongst Westernized nations.

So while I haven't seen any recent numbers, I'd tend to agree with JHV as far as pokies/problem gamblers are concerned. However, I must disagree with the sportbetting, especially in relation to racing - Japan and Hong Kong are much worse. Put it this way - the Melbourne Cup is televised live in Hong Kong, probably Japan as well - and not the other way around.

edit -> Asked my best friend Google to find some data - the following link is part of research done in Australia in 2007, primarily on EGM (electronic gaming machines - aka pokies) players - if you follow along you will see that 20% of those surveyed were classified as problem gamblers!

Here is the relevant part - Old / Expired Link

and the link to the main page -
Old / Expired Link

edit part 2 -> Google also discovered the following information:

Japan has 10% racing tax plus 50% of surplus profits paid to the government.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Hong Kong's racing tax is 72.5-75% of gross margin, the highest in the world.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You can sort of derive the volumes from these numbers. Hong Kong's betting turnover in the 2008-2009 season was roughly $8.5 billion dollars. Japan's betting turnover in 2006 was - wait for it - $28 trillion - and that does not including horse racing organized by local governments, only those operated by the Japan Racing Association.

 

[JHV]

It would be interesting to hear the basis for your sweeping and definitive conclusions. According to the survey I have linked below, percentage of problem gamblers in Australia is 1.6%.

Old / Expired Link

Firstly, in Australia, there are exactly ZERO 'independent' (and therefore, objective) studies done in regards to problem gambling. The closest you'll get are ones like this one you've linked to, sponsored by? The South Australia state government - for whom, the hundreds of millions of annual tax revenue from the gambling industries clearly creates a conflict of interest and makes the report worthless, in my opinion.

Now, and I realise many will disagree with me on this, if you cut out all the fluff about gambling being 'entertainment' (which it certainly is, if only a super tiny % of your income is spent on it)....the hardcore truth of the matter is that ALL gambling on negative expectation wagers is, by clinical definition, PROBLEM GAMBLING. So, if you're being brutally honest and objective, 99.999% of gamblers in Australia have a PROBLEM with their gambling (especially considering that TAB and SportsBetting agencies run on 16% spreads, pokies are almost all 13% HA, casino game rules range from 2-3% for perfectly played BJ and roulette to over 15-20% for Caribbean Stud and sidebets like Perfect Pairs and jackpots). Lotto games like PowerBall and others have HA as high as 80% or even higher. Well over 50% of adults in Australia buy lottery tickets, which are available at every newsagent in the country. Australia has over 1/5th of the WORLD'S slot machines. We are a nation of 20 million or so.

Now, we can argue all day about where to draw the line on what % of income expended turns a recreational pastime into "problem gambling" - the honest-to-god truth is that 95% of the (otherwise highly educated) adult population of Australia has no clear understanding of the concept of "house edge", and 99.9% would not be able to tell you what % house advantage is on the wagers they are making. If they truly understood, they would be nauseous - many are just not intelligent enough to grasp the concept, others have no real interest either way, others might understand the concept but consider themselves *lucky* and therefore unaffected by the mathematics. 99.9999% (no exaggeration) simply do not truly understand the nature of variance - 99.99% of successful online poker pros don't truly understand the nature and power of variance.

I say all this to explain that the people doing these studies, the "experts" if you will, aren't nearly intelligent enough to even begin to create objective and intelligent studies into the issue. I've had conversations with "experts" of this nature (who VERY much were objective and interested in what I was trying to explain to them - but the simple fact, and I apologise if this sounds arrogant, is that they simply aren't intelligent enough to comprehend this kind of stuff - shit, I was a mathematics geek and studied statistical modeling and sample size confidence intervals at university level, and I couldn't even become close to understanding the true nature of these issues until many years into a hugely successful professional gambling career).

Now, the study you've linked to is from 2005. We're now in 2009 and the internet gambling explosion during the last 4 years makes this particular study obsolete to the point of hilarity (obviously).

The number of people represented by this rate was approximately 18,000 adults (range 16,000 to 20,000), of whom 5,000 are high risk gamblers.

This is one of the "key findings" on page 3 of that report. This "finding" is so ludicrous, I'm going to struggle to even read further. In my first year working at Jupiters, I saw WAY more than 5000 high risk gamblers come through that place, and we're talking about a single tiny land-based casino not even located in the state capital.

Frequent gamblers (respondents who gambled every week or fortnight) were asked about issues that indicated problems with gambling, and about the impacts that gambling may be having on their life.

Do I really need to point out the ludicrous nature of this method of "studying" an issue? Please tell me I do not. Please tell me that you understand that surveying gamblers as to how they personally felt about their gambling activities will give you results so redundant, the "doctors" and "experts" who conducted this study should be ridiculed.

I could go on and on, but the key issues I believe I've covered.

Cliffnotes:

State and Territory governments in Australia derive > 10% of their annual revenue from gambling taxes. All studies commissioned by government departments are, by this very fact, impossible to classify as 'objective'.

The number of people in Australia who truly understand the somewhat complex key issues (an understanding required to even attempt such a study) is probably less than 1000 people. This is a serious estimate.

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.

All the available "studies" (of which you can probably guess my opinion/s as to their 'value') seem to be conducted in 2005 or thereabouts. The last 4 years has seen massive explosion in internet/online gambling, to levels that would blow the collective minds of interested non-industry involved persons.

Surveying gamblers for their responses and personal opinions on gambling is so ludicrous a research method, I'm torn between laughter and anger. Any further expansion on this point is redundant.

-------

A crude, but far more accurate, method to get a rough idea of the levels of problem gambling would be to compare per capita gambling expenditure (assuming we can even rely on the accuracy of these figures, knowing that they are delivered by non-objective sources) with average per capita income.

I'm too lazy to spend more than a few minutes online for a recent per capita number, but a 2007 BBC article has the following numbers:

Since 1990-91, real per capita expenditure has increased from $A470.60 (US$360) to $A931.64 in 1999-2000. The figure now is likely to be much higher.

1991? lol. "now likely to be much higher?" lollllllllllllllllllllllllllollercaust. Ah, BBC, you crack me up. How does BBC hire a journalist who doesn't understand the concept of CPI or...um...the INTERNET as it's developed from 1991 to 2007. The world makes me laugh at times.

Oh, here we go - a more recent figure on per capita expense from the UK Telegraph:

The country has an estimated 300,000 "problem gamblers", the highest level per capita in the world, who lose an average of A$12,000 a year on "pokies" - glorified fruit machines promising hefty payouts.

On pokies. This number is for pokies only. Just pokies people. Pokies in Australia account for probably 30% (guess only) of gambling expenditure.

After-tax average salary in Australia is something like $20-30,000. And this number is heavily distorted by the "80/20 rule". Ignoring that, after mortgages, utilities, vehicle/transport costs...the average 'expendable' amount an Australian adult has is probably something like $10,000/year (to spend or save).

I'll end this post now, but I hope I've done a decent job of explaining that I'm not talking out of my ass - I kinda know this shit. And it's kinda fucked up, to be honest.

That 1% number. How do I feel about it? I guess...."lol?"

 

[deucebag]

....the hardcore truth of the matter is that ALL gambling on negative expectation wagers is, by clinical definition, PROBLEM GAMBLING.




Do I really need to point out the ludicrous nature of this method of "studying" an issue? Please tell me I do not. Please tell me that you understand that surveying gamblers as to how they personally felt about their gambling activities will give you results so redundant, the "doctors" and "experts" who conducted this study should be ridiculed.

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.

but I hope I've done a decent job of explaining that I'm not talking out of my ass - I kinda know this shit. And it's kinda fucked up, to be honest.

That 1% number. How do I feel about it? I guess...."lol?"

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.

 

[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 ) 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.

 

[slotheadlizard]

Survey

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...

Though you may not agree with the results of some surveys, and that's your choice, I don't think this particular example of your questions are an accurate portrayal of questions.

I've been in research for 11 years, and have found that when questions are on an anonymous basis (through whatever method) people seem to be more honest in their replies.

Also, surveys that are trying to come up with accurate statistics don't have questions that are so "black and white", and may not be designed for the subject to draw their own conclusions.

1. Do you have a gambling problem?

To conclude this, the question may be, How many times per week do you gamble? Have you ever skipped work to gamble? Have you ever stolen funds to gamble? etc, etc, etc.

 

[JHV]

Have you ever skipped work to gamble? Have you ever stolen funds to gamble? etc, etc, etc.

Someone responding to such a survey would never see through such craftily disguised subterfuge.

Addicts of any kind LOVE to admit they have a problem. They are well-known for being objective and rational about their activities and have rarely been found to be in any form of denial whatsoever.

 

[dominique]

What subterfuge?

And if addicts love to admit they have a problem, why do they hide booze bottles all over the house and why is it supposed to be such a big deal at alcoholics anonymous to get up and say: I am an alcoholic"?

And how come you know everything better than slotheadlizard who has been in research for 11 years or Jasmine who went through the trouble of actually talking to people in the field?

I was looking forward to a constructive thread about problem gambling. It is doubtlessly an issue, and an important one to know the FACTS about.

 

[JHV]

What subterfuge?

And if addicts love to admit they have a problem, why do they hide booze bottles all over the house and why is it supposed to be such a big deal at alcoholics anonymous to get up and say: I am an alcoholic"?

Apologies for confusion. I was lazy and reverted to the lowest form of wit.

But you make the same point as I was making with my sarcasm.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

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

You certainly know your stuff JHV, IMO at least

Spearmaster was making the point that a 50/50 or +EV bet is not gambling but I would not completely agree with that. The relationship between +EV, bankroll and variance is a complex one. Sometimes like with a big VP jackpot it can be extremely hard to convert a +EV situation into cash. Also in poker where the +EV is hard to measure it can be very hard to strike a balance. Even if you are strongly +EV variance can do weird things to you and upset your balance and order.

Talking of which - does that demolition remark mean what I think it means? I hope it doesn't or at least you have come to terms with it. You sound like you have a lot of resiliance in general anyway .

 

[JHV]

You certainly know your stuff JHV, IMO at least

Spearmaster was making the point that a 50/50 or +EV bet is not gambling but I would not completely agree with that. The relationship between +EV, bankroll and variance is a complex one. Sometimes like with a big VP jackpot it can be extremely hard to convert a +EV situation into cash. Also in poker where the +EV is hard to measure it can be very hard to strike a balance. Even if you are strongly +EV variance can do weird things to you and upset your balance and order.

Talking of which - does that demolition remark mean what I think it means? I hope it doesn't or at least you have come to terms with it. You sound like you have a lot of resiliance in general anyway .

I argue a wager where you have a 99.99% chance of winning and 00.01% chance of losing is still a gamble - just a VERY good gamble.

Life is a gamble. Most people don't realise every day, they probably do (rough guess) 20-50 things that have element of serious risk - low statistical probability, but possibly devastating impact when "unlucky". I kind of see the world through these geeky eyes I guess, everything I'm doing I'm weighing up the odds or betting line or probabilities or whatever (as best as I am able to judge anyway - sometimes I'd be hilariously incorrect on my guesses, but apart from some clear wagers where number of variables are low and exact values known, etc, every wager is a 'guess' - professional gamblers will win more if their 'guesses' are more correct, more often.

I have some talents in some things but I suck at 'life' in many ways. This is partly because I kinda have a flippant attitude towards it. I used to be the biggest "life-nit" (risk averse, price conscious, bankroll aware, etc) in the world as I kid, I think. This hampered my ability in poker for many years - you need to become adjusted to the simple fact that swings and the wild variance ride will be crazy and insane, and you have to psychologically prepare yourself for that and trust your "guesses" 100% - if you blink, or at least if you blink often, someone like me will run roughshod over you. In a lot of ways, the current nature of online MSNL now is a game of Blind Man's Bluff - he who blinks first loses. Or he who cracks first mentally over inability to handle the swings.

I only started doing very well at MSNL mid-last year when I finally got my head around the fact that I'd be winning or losing 50k a day regardless of how well (or poorly) I played. I was able to get my head around this and I didn't blink for a very long time

A cheeky side-effect of being a successful (and therefore psychologically numb to the insane swings) MSNL multi-tabler, is that you become numb to the value of money, in many ways. I would play one of the most brilliant sessions of my life and drop 60k. Or I would play horribly (and know it) and win 30k. Needing to be able to judge your own guess at the expectation of a single play (example: "check-pushing this river for $7000 with air on a bluff will deliver me 105-110% return on average" - CHECK - OPPONENT BET - ALL IN - "oops, wrong that time, next hand"...), fail and instantly move on without any psychological impact - is simply vital. Without this numbness, I don't think you'd have a chance of succeeding in the current nature of insanely aggressive and complex MSNL online games.

Now, the problem with becoming completely and utterly numb to money, is that you don't care if you lose it. You're numb. My numbness was accentuated by another existential crisis kind of thing, where I hit some meaningless financial goals I'd had since I was like 14, and the second I hit those goals, I knew I'd effectively been wasting my life burning midnight oil studying and working insanely hard to achieve what amounted to a fallacy. And I hated myself for it, for conveniently deluding myself into believing those goals were somehow worth the insane effort and sacrifices I had made for so many years.

So I was professionally numb from the insane swings of a year or two at MSNL. And I was unprofessionally numb from the realisation that I'd been retarded my whole life about the money issue, and it's inherent value - which I immediately re-valued / re-priced at 10c on the $ or something

That was dumb, in hindsight - although I really did feel money was close to worthless and kinda still do, in some ways. Cause when I ended some business projects in January 09 which used to take up a lot of my time, I found myself with an insane amount of free time on my hands and no plans or motivation to do much to occupy myself - house edge got involved, 100 other mitigating issues contributed, and before I really thought "oh, maybe there is something or someone that deserves this money a LOT more than these dirty online casinos who keep screwing me unfairly"....most of it was gone.

I am genuinely ok with it. It was dumb, but I still don't really value money so the pain that a lot of people would feel at losing 700-750k over a few months (with a hell of a lot of that on -EV sillyness) simply isn't there for me. I'm more 'disappointed' in myself, because now that I think about it, hell I'd rather walk along a random street and hand 10k blocks to strangers than allow those online casinos (almost all of which screwed me, in some way - with the stark exception of 32Red, who were fantastic). But I don't lose sleep over it or anything, it's just a "bleh, that was misappropriation of funds" type feeling.

I still have a relatively decent amount. And I have some business interests with + cash flow. And I have literally dozens of ideas in my head which I could easily convert to cash flow if I cared to make the effort - which I very strongly do not right now...I've been possessed by a lazy version of myself. It's 'intriguing'. Obviously my new-found laziness is directly linked to my (late) realisation that the mad race to simply acquire as much $ as you could, at the expense of leisure time, relationships, etc...was really stupid and I feel a fool to have committed so many years of my life to that mad race.

I dunno about whether I have 'resilience' (anymore). I certainly did when I was younger and accomplished some amazing things under intense handicaps very much against the odds - but now, I suspect I'm incapable of much really, except to be lazy, drink if I feel like it, read if I feel like it, ramble on forums if I feel like it, sleep if I feel like it...and not much else

No prizes for guessing I'm currently in the "ramble on forums if I feel like it" phase. I believe this will shortly morph into "eat if I feel like it" phase. I have no idea why I would think *anyone* would find that interesting. Should backspace but meh.....

 

[WagerWitch]

"My numbness was accentuated by another existential crisis kind of thing, where I hit some meaningless financial goals I'd had since I was like 14, and the second I hit those goals, I knew I'd effectively been wasting my life burning midnight oil studying and working insanely hard to achieve what amounted to a fallacy. And I hated myself for it, for conveniently deluding myself into believing those goals were somehow worth the insane effort and sacrifices I had made for so many years."

This is not an uncommon feeling for many people - not just gamblers.

Truly something you might want to do - is make NEW goals.

Part of the process is to CONSTANTLY make goals and give yourself something ELSE to strive for.

And to complete.

It isn't the lack of justification or a "good" feeling to pass those goals... It is in the game of finishing those goals like you set out to do so.

It's a competition of sorts with yourself.

Once you complete a goal - it's kind of "blah" feeling "ishy".

It's in the game... In the chase that you feel most alive.

So make some NEW goals.

Maybe Philanthropy.

Maybe you could do something with your money - besides give it back to the critters that give it to you.

Truth is - most people don't win.

Truth is - no matter how good at gambling you are - you're going to lose sometime.

And loss is horrible.

So - make new goals.

Make something worthwhile.

Yeah - get off your arse and do it.

I mean - hell - if I had the kind of money you were talking about - I'd sit comfortably on my arse and write a book - and live modestly... For the rest of my life.

I don't need Glamor.

I don't need extravagance...

I need a nice house, a comfy grouping of furniture - some toys - a little bit of yearly spending money - and a passport to do a little travelling... (And I don't have to go first class either...)

A garden.

Enough money for food and basic bills.

And Voila... An enjoyable - enviable life.

So - what makes YOU different - now that you've GOT the money?

Hmmm?

Now you have to spend it all back - just to prove that you're a loser? And an unlucky one at that?

You have to PROVE to yourself that you are self destructing?

Fine...

But could you self destruct in my direction?

I mean I've got a deck of cards -and cheap chips - I suck at poker - but you could pay the house advantage... LOL!

Or you could just wire me the money - so I can pay my attorneys to protect my arse a little better in the suit I have against the State and the City....

LMAO!

Seriously dude - you're talking to a bunch of us who are low key gamblers - some of us have addictions... But you're in the OH MY GAWD range...

The range that we all believe if we ever hit - we'd stop gambling.

Yanno?

Because if I had millions in my hands - I'd seriously never gamble again in my life - I gamble to POSSIBLY win that much - so I won't ever have to worry about life...

Not to live the glamorous life or lose it all back.

Maybe that is an addiction point.

But to me - it sounds more like self destruction.

And a serious case of it.

Again - I reiterate - YOU SHOULD STOP GAMBLING - sit down at your keyboard and write a book.

You've got some information in your head that you should pass on to others.

You've got stories that would make people sit up and pay attention.

Not for the money - but to get that info out there.

 

[JHV]

This is not an uncommon feeling for many people - not just gamblers.

Somewhat astonishingly (to me), I have discovered over the last 6 months how common this is - I was living in my own little workaholic fantasy land for 14 years.

The happiest people I know are those who don't have regrets. Unfortunately, I regret working so hard for over a decade, and there's no real gameplay solution for that.

But it's all good - once I work out what, if anything, I want to do - I'll snap out of my funk and I'll get it done. Just a matter of finding something I'm motivated.

Discussed philanthropy in another thread. Tried it a number of times, came away from every experience feeling very disillusioned about the concept of charity - I muck around with Kiva.org (micro lending at -EV) which I think highly of, and I do a bit of other stuff - but the simple fact is I don't think a lot of people holding their hands out deserve help, and finding the ones that do appears to be too much hassle, and tilt as you work your way through the jokers that don't deserve assistance on your search for those that do. To cut a very long story short, I've decided I don't really like the idea of most forms of charity - and all my efforts at philanthropy over the years have left me with a bitter aftertaste (with the exception of Kiva).

I apologise and completely understand how sick and twisted such a story must sound to a normal, hard-working person grinding away raising a family, juggling a million responsibilities, etc. I apologise how, if I am truthful about what I've done and how I feel about it, it might create (fair and just) feelings of nausea in some readers. But MSNL online pros live in a surreal world - it's not comparable to reality. As mentioned above, you actually have to disassociate yourself from reality to be successful - and then it's a catch-22 situation. It's all a bit sick, and I never really understood these kinds of complications or how talented players lost huge bankrolls until I experienced the insanity for myself. I had always assumed otherwise talented players who burned huge rolls (generically common-place in our world) had crazy mental issues, where their egos blew into insane realms and they went mad / insane chasing losses in furious, maddening tilt. I never, for one second, considered myself to ever be at risk - as I have prided myself on my discipline and mental control / stability for so long. No one ever explained to me about the "numbness" factor - that, so often, huge bankrolls amassed over long periods of time are dumped purely cause the player doesn't care all that much, feels nothing or very little. It's such a cute, but sick, irony.

I'm barely gambling at all now. I'm still +EV in probably every online MSNL game up to 1000nl and most 2000nl games - I'm probably -EV now in almost, if not every, 5000nl game. And the player pool is rapidly shrinking for all levels, whilst average skill level of opponents is rising rapidly. So even though there are many games where I still have net +expectation vs the field, the margin of edge I have is much smaller now, and decreasing rapidly - causing a corresponding loss in motivation, not that I had much this year to begin with.

I'm still dabbling in some games where I have *decent* expectation, but I'm still losing on a world-class downswing that would send a player who strongly cared about his results completely insane - I am already kind of insane, so I am fine

I just don't really have much drive anymore, so I'm not grinding out 50-80k hand months at MSNL like I used to - I might not play all that seriously for days, or weeks at a time - just trying to figure out what, if anything, I want to do at the moment...and not putting any serious time pressures on myself to reach that decision / conclusion.

It will come to me at some point, I'm just twiddling my thumbs and waiting....I can't set any kind of goals until I decide what exactly I want. At the moment, I want a Subway Teriyaki Chicken footlong, so gonna make that happen - taking it one footlong at a time.

 

[slotheadlizard]

JHV

Someone responding to such a survey would never see through such craftily disguised subterfuge.

Addicts of any kind LOVE to admit they have a problem. They are well-known for being objective and rational about their activities and have rarely been found to be in any form of denial whatsoever.

All CM forum members never give smart ass replies, and are always objective. They are open to suggestions and constructive criticism. They are rarely found to be wrong in any fashion, and keep their post short and to the point.

 

[4 of a kind]

Glad to see you back again JHV. Seems your doing a great job venting here on this forum.
Wish you great success and recovery.