RESEARCH QUESTION
Is theoretical loss a better indicator of ‘gambling intensity’ than bet size?
PURPOSE
Recent studies of internet gambling used variables such ‘bet size’ and ‘number of games played’ as proxy measures for ‘gambling intensity’. The authors of the present study argued that the most stable and reliable measure for ‘gambling intensity’ is the ‘theoretical loss’ (i.e., a product of total bet size and house advantage). The purpose of the study was to provide an analysis of real online gambler data (as opposed to simulated data) to highlight the differences between bet size and theoretical loss in relation to actual gamblers who play different types of online games.
HYPOTHESES
Bet size would not explain all of the theoretical loss. The more diverse the individual’s gaming behaviour, the less important bet size would become in explaining theoretical loss.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were 100,000 online gamblers who played casino, lottery and/or poker games during February 2012. Age and gender were not reported.
PROCEDURE
The authors were given access to a large anonymized data set by a commercial gaming operator of an online casino and lottery portal. During the registration process, there was a mandatory requirement for all players to set time and cash-in limits.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The game types were categorized into eight distinct groups: Lottery—Draw/Instant; Casino—Card; Casino—Slot; Casino—Videopoker; Casino—Table; Casino Other; Bingo and Poker. For each of the game types and each player, the ‘bet size’ and the ‘theoretical loss’ were computed for the recorded time period. House advantage for these game types are very different. In general, lottery games have a relatively high house advantages (typically 50 %) whereas slot machines have house advantages in the range of 1–5 % depending on the gaming platform and the specific game. Poker on the other hand does not have a house advantage as such. In poker, the gaming involvement can be measured via the rake (i.e., a fixed percentage of the stake (bet size) that goes to the casino). The overall theoretical loss was comprised of the theoretical loss across all game types plus the poker rake.
KEY RESULTS
Bet size and overall theoretical loss across eight game types were strongly positively correlated; however, bet size alone only explained 72% of the variance of theoretical loss. In order to be able to make further inferences on the difference between the theoretical loss and the bet size, a measure of difference was computed. The distribution of the ranked theoretical loss and the ranked bet size were equal. The higher the involvement in lottery games the smaller the difference between the total bet ranking and the theoretical loss ranking. The higher the involvement in poker games, the higher the difference between the total bet ranking and theoretical loss ranking. For players that were equally ranked according to total bet and theoretical loss, the lottery gaming involvement was low. However, this is also the case for players who are completely differently ranked. This highly non-linear pattern produced an overall negative correlation of -0.37. For this reason, the correlation that measures linear relationships has to be interpreted with caution. Overall, the higher the ranking difference the less valid the bet size as a measure of the theoretical loss.
LIMITATIONS
None stated.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the results suggest that bet size does not reliably indicate the amount of money that players are willing to risk as it does not take into account the house advantage of each individual game that gamblers engage in.
