Problem Gamblers: Easy to spot. Are you one?

[SBR_John]

OK, I'm playing blackjack in Curacao at $10-$20 a throw (depending on my count, beer count that is). My buddy is playing for $100 a hand. Now my buddy makes decent coin probably $200k a year.

After a couple of days I decided that problem gamblers are simply defined as players who bet more than they can afford. I think its just that simple. Think about it, if you make $40k a year you could make all sports bets you want at $10 a throw, right?

Anyone agree?

[capitalist pig]

Alot of folks bet more than they can afford while visiting casinos, that in itself I wouldnt think would label one as a problem gambler. Me id rather see the word passionate instead of problem, defining us sports bettors.

later

[Ganchrow]

OK, I'm playing blackjack in Curacao at $10-$20 a throw (depending on my count, beer count that is). My buddy is playing for $100 a hand. Now my buddy makes decent coin probably $200k a year.

After a couple of days I decided that problem gamblers are simply defined as players who bet more than they can afford. I think its just that simple. Think about it, if you make $40k a year you could make all sports bets you want at $10 a throw, right?

Anyone agree?

I'd say that this is almost tautologically true, "If you bet 'too much' then you have a problem", with the phrase "too much" being a bit nebulously defined. But how much really is "too much"? Clearly if you bet so much you can't afford food or shelter that's "too much". But it's not always so clear.

What if you're not betting so much that you're likely to starve, but maybe enough that you decide to skip the trip to Smith & Wollensky and settle for Ruth Chris (or even skip Ruth Chris for Sizzler)? Or what if you can't afford afford Amstel and need to drink Natural Light?

While this is obviously quite far removed from a life and death struggle, it still represents just the sort of diminished quality of life issue that gambling has been known to create.

Gambling can be problematic not just because it may be costly monetarily, but also because it can negatively impact your own life as well as the lives of those around you. If you spend too much time gambling and not time enough with your kids; if you consistently base family trips on the proximity of destinations to gambling establishments rather than around the desires of your family as a whole; or if you spend so much time playing online poker that you don't have time to exercise -- these all may indicative of non-financial gambling-related problems. (I would hasten t point out that these problems aren't limited to gambling ... consistently spending your Saturday nights playing with your Dreamcast rather than with your significant other may also be suggestive of problems.)

[Crayzee]

i agree with that
what michael jordan can afford to lose gambling and what i can afford are vastly different amounts
i dont think he has a problem and i dont think i do either
i will say that though i dont feel i have a problem from a $$
point of view it could be a problem in that i'd rather gamble-
and sit at the computer all night or (day) watching for 2half bets or movements on late games as opposed to doing something else

[jjgold]

Amounts have nothing to do with problem gamblers, you can have 2 million in the bank and if you mind is controlled by gambling with $10 bets you are a compulsive gambler. If all you think about is gambling it is the same thing, if you become anti social because of gambling it is the same thing.

I know guys that bet $40,000 a game and are broke but are not compulsive gamblers

It is a fine line

Johnny your a sicko compulsive degenerate fuk

[Ganchrow]

Amounts have nothing to do with problem gamblers, you can have 2 million in the bank and if you mind is controlled by gambling with $10 bets you are a compulsive gambler. If all you think about is gambling it is the same thing, if you become anti social because of gambling it is the same thing.

I know guys that bet $40,000 a game and are broke but are not compulsive gamblers

Astonishingly, I largely agree with JJ on this one.

Although it can be about the amount, it's often just about the mentality.

[onlooker]

I'm not a problem bettor in the money aspect, but I guess I could fall into one of the other classes of it.

[BuddyBear]

Money bet is totally irrelevant....problem gambling is psychological and consists of both cognitive and affective components

Problem gambling is probably best considered as the proximity in time between gambling events/experiences. I don't know what the scientific or medical definition is but I would considered it to not be too far off.

If you decide to bet 3 games for a day and then lose all 3 and then decide to bet the Hawaii game just b/c it is there you have a seious problem .......Another key is to try to stop for a few days and if you have a major urge to bet again and do...you are a problem gambler.

If you get such a rush from gambling that can not be rivaled by other social or individual experiences (i.e. having sex, reading a book, watching a film, playing a recreational sport, going out with friends, etc...) you are a serious problem gambler.

If the only way you can enjoy games is by betting more and more each time then you are a problem gambler.

If games occupy a lot of your time, if you routinely revist past gambling success and become nostalgic over them, if you plan upcoming future gambling events (i.e. where should I bet bases this summer, etc...) you are probably a problem gambler.

Fortunately problem gambling is not as pronounced in sports betting as it is in other forms of gambling like slots machines and cards which can be addicitve since slot machines the rush is for a few seconds and instant in the sense that all you have to do is pull a handle....sports betting not always available and plus the games themselves take time to play out.

Even so, most people on this forum would easily fall under the category of problem gamblers.

[jjgold]

8 out of every 10 posters have a huge gambling problem

[Crayzee]

I DONT EVEN WATCH THE GAMES ANYMORE!!
i'd rather have a movie or american idol or miami ink on and just keep track of the games on line!
but the games bein gon keeps me from going out to bars(that could be a good thing)

[WWTSblows]

It's only a problem if you lose

[Ira Wilton]

BB good post. I wonder when something ceases to be a "hobby" and becomes a "problem"?

[jjgold]

It becomes a problem when it controls your life whether it is financially or emotionaly

[Dark Horse]

I love gambling. Why would that be a problem? Does it control my life? To a large extent, yes. But not more so than a guy who sits in his office working for some company he doesn't care about, doing something he doesn't care about.

Gambling is greatly entertaining. Since when is that a problem? Losing could be a problem, but even that has its place. No gambler has been truly tested until he has experienced a prolonged losing streak. In fact, there may be no greater test of character.

Does a prolonged losing streak suddenly turn a successful gambler into a problem gambler? Of course not. Yet society would love to hypnotize gamblers into thinking they are degenerate, because that would prove society right in its near hopeless unwillingness to take risks.

What does society know about bankroll and money management? Or about risk management, for that matter. These lessons we learn through gambling can be very useful.

Gamblers are romantics. At a deep, soul level all they want is to show they are above the ups and downs of duality. So embrace risk, both the winning and losing part of it. Look death in the eye, if necessary. Live life with balanced recklessness.

[Halo]

It's only a problem if you lose

Agree

[Ganchrow]

Gambling is greatly entertaining. Since when is that a problem? Losing could be a problem, but even that has its place. No gambler has been truly tested until he has experienced a prolonged losing streak. In fact, there may be no greater test of character.

Gamblers are romantics. At a deep, soul level all they want is to show they are above the ups and downs of duality. So embrace risk, both the winning and losing part of it. Look death in the eye, if necessary. Live life with balanced recklessness.

Have you ever read Dostoevsky The Gambler? I suspect it might be right up your alley.

[raiders72002]

If you can't sleep until the Hawaii game is final then you have a problem.

[Halo]

If you can't sleep until the Hawaii game is final then you have a problem.

Haha, Hawaii was early today it was like 4:30 or something. I actually put some on the over and the time suprised me because Hawaii always has the classic start of 11:59pm

[Dark Horse]

Have you ever read Dostoevsky The Gambler? I suspect it might be right up your alley.

I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the link, Ganch.

[Ganchrow]

I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the link, Ganch.

Enjoy.

And let me know what you think.

[BuddyBear]

I read that book.....it's not bad.

[pags11]

buddy, you sound like Jeff Foxworthy...

"You might be a problem gambler if..."

[jjgold]

Pags you might be one of the few that does not have a gambling problem.

[Willie Bee]

The only problem I have is not winning enough. But in some ways I'm thankful for that since winning more often might lead to me having a problem and thinking I really know more than I do. My accountant-slash-better half, as well as the other habits/obsessions in my life, keep me from gambling more than I feel I can afford to lose.

[SBR_John]

Money bet is totally irrelevant....problem gambling is psychological and consists of both cognitive and affective components

I dont agree. There is a big difference between "problem gambling" and "compulsive gambling".

Let me make my point:

If a lad is knocking down a half million a year in salary and likes to bet the board every single day at $5 a game is he really a "problem gambler"? He is certainly compulsive but I would argue he is not a problem gambler. Because of his bet size gambling will never sink its evil claws into him.

So I still contend players can enjoy gambling if they can condition themselves to enjoy the passion at a bet level well below what they so called "can afford".

[jjgold]

If you win all the time you would quit gambling at least most would because compulsive gamblers want to lose.

I guess problem gambling is more losing way too much vs your lifestyle needs.

[SBR_John]

BTW, the mach ncaa is an event that players sometimes chase more than they normally would very similiar to ncaa bowl season.

Just a reminder to keep your plays small and enjoy what promises to be one of the better tourneys.

[Korchnoi]

For me

I think there are a few categories of gamblers:

1) There's the "advantage player" who gambles only when he objectively believes he has the edge.
2) The guy who only makes bets he thinks are good, but hasn't any objective basis for him to think so.
3) The guy who bets for action/fun even if he knows he's taking the worst of it.


I feel that as long as 90%+ of my action goes into #1, I'm fine. I have bet for reason #2 before, but I always wind up feeling guilty. As a rule, I'll never do a #3. This is my own philosophy, although very few outsiders would understand my reasoning.

I tend to agree with SBR_John's analysis. It's all about what you can afford to loose. I've met people who are mostly #1 gambers with a little #2, but they just bet way over their head.

If you're a #1 and totally obsessed with gambling, I'd be more inclined to call you a "workaholic" than a "compusive gamber" (much less a "problem gambler").

[Ganchrow]

3) The guy who bets for action/fun even if he knows he's taking the worst of it.

As a rule, I'll never do a #3. This is my own philosophy, although very few outsiders would understand my reasoning.

Yeah I don't personally find gambling very much fun at all. I like analyzing bets, outwitting opponents, and winning money (and maybe even occasionally having a few drinks at a BJ table at a casino and soaking in the atmosphere), but the act of gambling itself?

That I could do without.

[Jay Edgar]

Don't most of us begin as a pure category #3, and with perservence (and a powerful distaste for losing) move up the ladder in fits and starts until we are largely, largely, a category #1? (As the other alternative seems to be going broke one time too many.)


I think that's my story. The first 30 years of it at least.

[Korchnoi]

Don't most of us begin as a pure category #3, and with perservence (and a powerful distaste for losing) move up the ladder in fits and starts until we are largely, largely, a category #1? (As the other alternative seems to be going broke one time too many.)


I think that's my story. The first 30 years of it at least.

I, for one, started at #1 (as a scalper, bonus player, etc.). After a great deal of straight arbitrage, I started to market make in some contracts on tradesports around what I felt was FV. I was mostly flow trading, but no arbs so that's category 2. Some other of my other category 2s have included playing some of Jay Edgar's NBA picks. I don't know enough about the fundamentals of sportsbetting to include those plays as #1, although if I were Jay Edgar, I'd probably include those as #1 (although his system prob started off in #2 land...).

[Korchnoi]

Yeah I don't personally find gambling very much fun at all. I like analyzing bets, outwitting opponents, and winning money (and maybe even occasionally having a few drinks at a BJ table at a casino and soaking in the atmosphere), but the act of gambling itself?

That I could do without.

I actually hate risk also. I remember in college I always felt more risk averse than the people I played poker with. When I started online, I was much too small also. I don't really like sweating the variance, I just look at it differently now. I need to bet enough so that my expected value (in dollar terms) is high enough for it to be worth my time finding good bets. I never really had a set bankroll, b/c I had another job so if I lost my roll I'd be able to replenish it later on. When I get a bad beat, I say, "The market fell 4% last week, does anyone feel stupid for having invested in the stock market?"

[imgv94]

Some people on here don't even bet.. They just talk about games.

[Sean]

Some people on here don't even bet.. They just talk about games.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Bet a little, bet a lot or simply discuss games/sports/betting ... it's all good.

[Korchnoi]

And there's nothing wrong with that. Bet a little, bet a lot or simply discuss games/sports/betting ... it's all good.

I agree. I think if you enjoy discussing gambling, even when you have no action or financial interest in what you're discussing, that it's a very good sign.