I Don't Think I Have a Gambling Problem but ...

[adios]

1. Did you ever lose time from work or school due to gambling?

Yes but it seemed like a rational choice to me.

2. Has gambling ever made your home life unhappy?

Yeah but not for quite some time. I used lose quite a bit of money betting sports 15-20 years ago. It depressed me a lot so I gave it up. The financial markets have handed me some prolonged beating but I believe I've fixed that problem as well. But it has effected my homelife at times.

3. Did gambling affect your reputation?

Yes.

4. Have you ever felt remorse after gambling?

No way, no how.

5. Did you ever gamble to get money with which to pay debts or otherwise solve financial difficulties?

Yes when I felt I had a big enough edge.

6. Did gambling cause a decrease in your ambition or efficiency?

No.

7. After losing, did you feel you must return as soon as possible and win back your losses?

No, actually more so the opposite. I would tend to reassess the situation.

8. After a win, did you have a strong urge to return and win more?

Oh yeah. I don't see how this is problematic though. In fact I consider it a plus.


9. Did you often gamble until your last dollar was gone?

No.

10. Did you ever borrow to finance your gambling?

I've used margin in the financial markets so I guess the answer is yes.

11. Have you ever sold anything to finance gambling?

No.

12. Were you reluctant to use "gambling money" for normal expenditures?

Yeah I didn't want to spend my bankroll.

13. Did gambling make you careless of the welfare of yourself or your family?

No in fact I try to be very careful in this regard.


14. Did you ever gamble longer than you planned?

Yes.

15. Have you ever gambled to escape worry or trouble?

No way, no how. Gambling is stressful. Perhaps low buy in Poker tournament is more of fun thing but we're not talking about a lot of money either.

16. Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act to finance gambling?

No, no. I finance my gambling with my winnings.

17. Did gambling cause you to have difficulty sleeping?

In two different ways. After a big poker win (it does happen occasionally /images/graemlins/smile.gif) I sometimes get really pumped up and it's hard to sleep. Sometimes I get lost in thinking about hands and how to play them and I have hard time shutting that out or thinking about different trading ideas.

18. Do arguments, disappointments, or frustrations create in you an urge to gamble?

No way, no how. Just the opposite /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

19. Did you ever have the urge to celebrate any good fortune by a few hours of gambling?

No, absolutely not.

20. Have you ever considered self-destruction or suicide as a result of your gambling?

No, puhleeze.

Most compulsive gamblers will answer "yes" to at least seven of these questions.

If I counted right I answered yes 9 times.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Since I am not a clinical psychologist, nor have I ever done any work on patholgical gambling, I am not qualified to say whether you have a problem.
However, the people who made that test may know what they are talking about. If you are over their cutoff number, it could be significant.
You might want to think a bit more about whether you have a problem. The fact that you posted your answers here suggests that you are wondering whether you have one.
Thanks for posting that questionnaire. If they take it, some people will be very surprised.
Regards,
Al

[steamboatin]

My wife plays slots about six times a year and I bet she would answer yes to five or six. When you say ever, if you ever one time cosidered it you have to say yes unless you are in denial and that would indicate a problem.

[Zeno]

adios,

I think you can discount # 12 and #17.

#12 Given that bankroll strategy is a sound disipline for poker play, I think you can delete that one.

#17 Thinking about the day's activities after you hit the sack (and more than just about gambling) is not unusual or a sign of dangerous behavior, IMO.

That makes you a 7 and borderline. Whether you need to talk to someone or seek professional help is a personal choice.

-Zeno

[deacsoft]

Very good point. "Ever" is such a strong word. Probably too strong of a word to be used on a questionare as this. If someone would have answered "yes" to one of the questions 10 years ago but wouldn't even consider it today; I think that drasticly skews the questionare.

Picture this...
Ten years ago a man is having a troublesome day at the office (1). This troubled day is leading him to be frustrated (2). He thinks he'll get away from it by taking the rest of the day off and heading to a local casino (3). He chooses the casino because he thinks it will help him forget about work for a couple hours because he's never gambled before in his life. In the parking lot of his workplace he runs in to a coworker that is just leaving work for the day as well. He tells the coworker that he is heading up to the casino for the first time because he's having a rough day. His coworker is an avid blackjack player and offers to come along and even to drive. The troubled worker agrees and states that he's only thinking of staying for a couple hours. They reach the casino and our troubled worker notices his wallet is missing and determines he left it at the office. He asks his coworker if he can borrow $20 (4) and the coworker agrees with no problem what so ever. The troubled worker finds a slot machine and begins playing. Five hours pass (5) and the blackjack playing coworker finds him at the slot machine. While the coworker is watching the troubled worker hits a large prize of $500. The two decide it's time to call it a day and they leave the casino. On the way home the coworker asks him what he thought of his first trip to the casino. He replies by saying that it was fun and he'd like to go again sometime (6). They get back to the workplace parking lot and the no longer troubled worker remembers to repay the borrowed $20 before getting in his car and heading home. When he reaches home he tells his wife of the excitement and the money he won at the casino. She is happy to hear it and they decide to spend the money on something they will both enjoy. That night as he lies down for bed he thinks of the good fortune he had at the casino and has trouble getting to sleep (7). An hour later he's counting sheep and falls asleep. To this day he has never again stepped foot in to another casino or even placed a $1 wager with a buddy on a basketball game. Yet because he was forced to answer truthfully to a questionare at work he is now looked at as a compulsive gambler (8).

[thirddan]

wow, good story...did you make that up?

[Al Schoonmaker]

You have a very valid point about "ever." I would think that something that has happened only infrequently is NOT a sign of a problem. In fact, as you pointed out, the more honest person would get a high score, while the person in denial could easily think, "I'm OK."
I really don't know how common pathological gambling problems are. Here is Las Vegas lots of people are clearly hooked, but I don't know about other places.
I don't trust the statistics because the people collecting them have a bias. Some people want to overstate the problem, while others want to understate it. Does anyone know of a source of unbiased statistics?
Although I don't know how common the problem is, there is no question that it is a serious one. Some people have unquestionably ruined their lives. Given its seriousness, it is a good idea to be cautious. If someone thinks he may have a problem, it's a good idea to investigate it thoroughly, in the same way it's good to get a thorough exam if you might have heart problems.
Regards,
Al

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

These 12-step people are in the business of creating victims, so ignore the "yes to 7 or more" test. You answered *no* to some key questions like 7, 9, 11, 13, & 16 to which affirmative answers would indicate compulsive behavior.

[steamboatin]

I hope that my post would not discourage a person from seeking help. I just have a problem with a generic questionaire that is supposed to highlight psychologial problems. People are way to complex to pin down in a short questionaire.

But if you have been thinking about getting help, Please go talk to someone.

[Warior]

[ QUOTE ]
These 12-step people are in the business of creating victims,

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...since I would tend to doubt by your statement that you have ever had any direct contact with one of these groups please stick to poker info, you seem to have some insights there. Trust me from a personal involvement we don't go looking for anyone, they come looking for US.

Many people will ask and answer questions posed by these groups and never require another thought, as those with a problem represent a very small segment. Those however, that do ask for help and I use the word ask because no one solicits members, have a wonderful support group.

Also, I have never thought of myself as a victim ,the only victims might be the family or friends of the person affected.

[Al Schoonmaker]

I agree. If someone thinks he might have a problem, the ONLY safe thing to do is to check it out.
In medicine there are two major types of errors, false positives and false negatives. False negatives are much more dangerous.
Let's say your doctor thinks you might have blocked arteries because of various symptoms. You do an EKG, and it turns out negative. The EKG finds no convincing evidence of blockage. The doctor is not convinced and wants you to take more exhaustive and expensive tests. You decide to save the money and skip them. Two months later you have a heart attack and die. That's the danger of a false negative.
A false positive would be the EKG says you have heart problems, and the doctor suggests more tests. You take an angiogram, and it says you're OK. You wasted some time and money, but you're alive. You also feel better because you know you don't have blocked arteries.
With psychological problems the tests are MUCH less accurate than EKGs and other medical tests. Far more errors occur, and the consequences of errors are not as extreme. However, it still pays to do whatever it takes to determine whether problems exist.
In other words, if you think you may have a problem, get the best information you can, even if it costs you a little time, money, or embarrassment.
Regards,
Al

[StellarWind]

Virtually any medical test or diagnostic procedure is susceptible to false positive results. Some rare medical conditions defeat tests for more common diseases. Many drugs list thwarting certain tests as a side effect.

The gambling problem quiz is no exception. It is a relatively crude tool that deals with typical people suffering typical gambling problems. That's why they are careful to only suggest that you may have a problem. Further evaluation could be appropriate.

Being a disciplined, winning gambler is a very rare "condition". The test is not designed to allow for this rare possibility. It would be hard to design a simple, self-administered test that could.

A successful professional gambler will often answer yes to many of these questions as a matter of course:

1. Did you ever lose time from work or school due to gambling?

It's normal for one's profession to take time from other important activities.

2. Has gambling ever made your home life unhappy?

"You work too much!"
"I'm lonely when you travel to tournaments."

3. Did gambling affect your reputation?

One's profession normally does that, especially a controversial one.

4. Have you ever felt remorse after gambling?

I feel bad when I know I've played poorly even if I won.

5. Did you ever gamble to get money with which to pay debts or otherwise solve financial difficulties?

That's what professional means.

10. Did you ever borrow to finance your gambling?

This can be acceptable in some situations.

11. Have you ever sold anything to finance gambling?

This can be acceptable in some situations.

12. Were you reluctant to use "gambling money" for normal expenditures?

Absolutely normal and expected.

14. Did you ever gamble longer than you planned?

People work late.

17. Did gambling cause you to have difficulty sleeping?

Another common side effect of having an exciting and stressful career.

There, that's ten potential yes answers for a perfectly healthy professional gambler. We just need to accept that diagnosing mental disorders in professional gamblers is more complicated than taking a quiz.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

since I would tend to doubt by your statement that you have ever had any direct contact with one of these groups

Incorrect. As someone who used to have a serious drinking problem, I find the 12-step mentality an anathema to truly solving the problem. Now that's just my personal opinion, but all I can go on is my own experience.

There is no "higher power" than my ability to reason.

You don't achieve success at anything by surrendering to being "powerless" over the behavior pattern that's hurting you.

If I ever go back to being a useless drunk it won't be because I have a disease, it will be because I am weak.

Screw recovery. I chose victory.

[nolanfan34]

Here's another fun exercise, to show how these questions can be interpreted in different ways. Pretend for a moment (and we all wish we were him right now), that you're one Greg Raymer:

1. Did you ever lose time from work or school due to gambling?

Yes, made a certain trip to LV.

3. Did gambling affect your reputation?

Yes. His reputation is now that of a world class player. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

4. Have you ever felt remorse after gambling?

Probably a little, for the way he demolished people with his large stack.

10. Did you ever borrow to finance your gambling?

Greg had backers.

14. Did you ever gamble longer than you planned?

Yes. I think Greg admitted he planned a mid-week flight out of Vegas, since it was the more-likely possiblility. I think he stayed longer than planned.

17. Did gambling cause you to have difficulty sleeping?

Having the chip lead going into the final table...I'm guessing this was probably a yes a bit.

So there's 6 right there, from the WSOP champ! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

That clearly is in jest, but seriously I think it's really a few key questions in there that really point to whether you have a problem or not. I would be curious to see how many 2+2 posters would score a 7 or over, I'm guessing probably many. Yet I don't necessarily associate that with problem gambling.

I guess in some ways it depends on how you define problem gambling. Is it the same whether you're an overall winner or loser? I would imagine there are many winning players on this site that would not want to imagine life without being able to play poker, but I don't know if that is a problem or not.

I suppose in the end each person must decide for themselves whether they need help. Another reason its so great that this forum offers this topic thread, and that people like Al come around and post on it.

[Warior]

Sorry you had a bad experience and since I wasn't there I have no idea why. I have seen hundreds of people helped by these programs including myself, and their success is widely know.

As far as being a disease, that is very open for debate in my mind, and I tend not to go that way either. I do believe that people bear some personal responsibility for their decisions and actions. However, there is also a certain amount of dependency whether mental or physical that needs to be dealt with. I know of very few people that could succeed in dealing with that alone, and that is the supportive role of most 12-step groups.

If you are one of those rare people bless you and I hope all remains well for you, but don't run off those who might be able to be helped

[adios]

In fact I appreciate greatly all the responses. Thank you very much for all of them.

I would add the following questions to the Gamblers Anonymous list:

21. Is the concept of expected value vague and/or foreign to you?

22. If you answered no to question 21, do you persist in gambling at negative EV to you endeavors?

If you answered yes to either questions 21 or 22 and you answered yes to six or more questions in 1-20 you may very possibly have a serious gambling problem. My brother does have a serious gambling problem and I know he would answer yes to more than 6 question in 1-20 and yes to question 22.

I think here on these 2+2 forums we have a lot of people, probably the vast majority of people, that are quite knowledgable about the concept of EV. I think in the general public though, people are actually quite ignorant about the concept of EV. Thus the questions posed by Gamblers Anonymous are probably applicable for many people in our society. At least that's my viewpoint. I believe that Gambler's Anonymous really does seek to help people btw.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't mean to run anyone off. The original poster's point was that he didn't feel he had a problem even though he answered more than the threshhold number of questions in the affirmative. If he can honestly look himself in the eye and say he doesn't have a problem, then he doesn't have a problem.

And I didn't have a "bad experience" with AA. The 12-step methodology is simply wrong for me. Many people who have benefited from those programs view them as a panacea, and preach about them to everyone who asks the kind of question the poster asked.

Maybe I'm out of line, but I tend to view 12-steppers in the same light as ex-smokers or born-agains. Many seem to feel the need to proselytize.

Preachy people make me cranky, but that's my problem.

[jdl22]

I did find your post entertaining and we agree that the huskies suck. While I understand that your post was in jest you seem to have the idea that the world champion of poker is immune to gambling addiction. I don't think Fossilman has a problem but there have been previous champions that did most notably Stu Ungar. Also Chris Moneymaker apparently had gambling addiction problems before he won the big one.

The other point you and others have made does stand - if you play poker professionally or semiprofessionally many of these questions aren't relevant.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
While I understand that your post was in jest you seem to have the idea that the world champion of poker is immune to gambling addiction. I don't think Fossilman has a problem but there have been previous champions that did most notably Stu Ungar. Also Chris Moneymaker apparently had gambling addiction problems before he won the big one.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to imply that. I know about Ungar's history, but hadn't heard that about Moneymaker. I don't think anyone who gambles would ever be completely immune from having problems. Hard to know for sure how a winning player would react if they lost their bankroll somehow, etc.

So, my post wasn't meant to suggest otherwise. Mostly just that the questions can be interpreted in many ways. Question three especially, about reputation, cracks me up. I'm sure many of the college age players who post on here probably have a reputation of being pretty cool due to the amount of money they make playing online.

[Dov]

I want to preface this post with a disclaimer.

In previewing my reply, I realized that it could easily be taken the wrong way.

I am not arguing the point of the doctor's post. I just wanted to point out some things that I thought might be a little bit inconsistent. This post is meant in a curious, questioning, and collaborating manner, not as an attack.

[ QUOTE ]
In medicine there are two major types of errors, false positives and false negatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this true for just about everything?

[ QUOTE ]
With psychological problems the tests are MUCH less accurate than EKGs and other medical tests. Far more errors occur, and the consequences of errors are not as extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this can be true. There are many, many cases of misdiagnosed/undiagnosed psych patients killing themselves or someone else, or otherwise completely destroying quality of life.

What about Columbine?
Child Molesters?
Serial Killers?
Parents who abuse their kids?

Some of these people even go to therapy for extended periods of time, as well. I think it may be safer to say that the failures are harder to detect, not that the effect of the failure to diagnose is less extreme.

[Warior]

Cool...then we are closer on this than I think either one of us thought originally. I happen to agree with many of your points but I would never want anyone who could be helped to not seek it because of my own feelings. I have been fortunate enough to see them help many people.

All the best.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people who have benefited from those programs view them as a panacea, and preach about them to everyone who asks the kind of question the poster asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not had any personal experience with any 12 step program.

It seems pretty natural to me, though, that someone who had overcome something as difficult as substance abuse would find personal gratification in helping someone else to overcome a similar problem.

In my mind, anyway, I could see how someone might even be able to feel like they had to go through it themselves, so that they could help others.

I may be way off base, but I don't think so.

Maybe they need to work a bit more on their social skills so they don't come off as 'preachy'.

Maybe that should be a 13th step.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a disciplined, winning gambler is a very rare "condition". The test is not designed to allow for this rare possibility. It would be hard to design a simple, self-administered test that could.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that developing a test for this 'rare' condition (at least as it concerns poker) is exactly what is currently being attempted in the personality type threads.

[Dov]

I personally think that this starts to cut to the heart of the matter. The problem is that people with a true gambling problem are in denial. If you ask them a direct question, you will likely get a flat out lie.

Do not forget that the entire gambling world rests on denial. It is true that many if not most people have no idea about the games they play in - whether or not they are beatable and how to do it. I think that this is largely due to the fact that most people do not gamble to make money. Not initially, anyway.

They do it as a diversion and it hooks like drugs. As we know here on 2+2, (after some very long debates, I might add) the cause-effect relationship between playing ability and results is completely unreliable in the short term. There are not many things in this world which have a property like this. That makes it hard for people who have made mistakes and won big pots with them to realize that they did make a mistake in the first place. After all, they won! If getting the money isn't the point of the game, what is? This is a very normal approach for an untrained person to take to the game. I think it is also the foundation for someone who may have borderline emotional issues anyway to go right over the edge.

I think that the money part comes later, after they have been hooked, but have no knowledge about the game. Now that they have lost so much, the money starts to become important. They still don't know how to win, though, so they end up losing everything.

It seems to me that the GA test is trying to identify people who are in too deep b/c of a psychological/physiological hook (addiction) which would not be alleviated by knowledge of the game. Even if they know the game, they overplay their BR or don't quit when they are tired, or play games that are too tough. All of these are just forms of denial and have no direct relationship to a person's technical skill or understanding of the game.

I think a better question to ask would be:

What do you expect to gain from your gambling, and why?

[Dov]

On second thought, my suggested question is more therapeutic than diagnostic. I don't know if it would help in deciding if someone is an addict or not.

/images/graemlins/ooo.gif Unless they answer that they gamble so they can buy drugs!

[Al Schoonmaker]

Thank you for your post, and I certainly don't take it as an attack.
You are correct that false positives and false negatives occur in countless situations. I chose medicine because diagnosis is such a central and formal part of the problem solving process, and both types of errors are so clearly defined.
In fact, you rarely hear the terms "false positives/negatives" in most fields.
Although the consequences of misdiagnosis of psychological disorders can be serious, they are rarely deadly. If cancer is not diagnosed in time, it is very frequently deadly. Most cancers can be cured if caught in time, but many of them are incurable after they have spread. The same pattern is true for many other diseases. For example, if you have minor occlusion of coronary arteries, it's quite simple to treat. If that occlusion reaches 90%, you're in deadly danger and better get a bypass immediately.
I agree with your point about the difficulty of detecting mental problems. Errors occur far more frequently than they do with medical diagnosis.
Regards,
Al

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Although the consequences of misdiagnosis of psychological disorders can be serious, they are rarely deadly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that this was your main point. I was drawing the line of extreme consequences a little sooner than you, at wrecking quality of life (beyond the ability to restore things to their prior condition).

Thanks for your post.

[StellarWind]

This thread made me reflect that it wouldn't hurt if Sklansky's ideas were taught in medical school. Someone I know died in large part because her doctor's made an unsuccessful decision.

She had an obviously life-threatening condition and there were two very different theories about what the underlying problem was. It became necessary to choose one diagnosis and treat it. A wrong guess would probably be quickly fatal.

The doctors did what they are undoubtedly trained to do. They chose the more likely possibility and operated.

Wrong in practice and wrong in theory. The operation was a dangerous longshot. The unlikely diagnosis was much more treatable. Most of the EV in terms of both life expectancy and quality of life lay in aggressively treating the unlikely condition and accepting that she would quickly die if they were wrong.

[Toonces]

I have some experience in this area, as I spent about 6 months in GA. I was there because my short-term marraige was in trouble due to me playing positive-EV video poker too much. I too took the test and answered yes to about 10 of the 20 questions. But the major disconnect between those people and myself was that while they all experienced huge financial woes and were incredibly irresponsible with money, I had experienced some of the work or relationship issues, but none of the financial issues. They in GA, of course, were convinced that there were no ways to be a long-term winner at gambling, and I was just destined to fall off of the cliff. They made recommendations like signing all accounts over to your wife (a stupid idea for a marriage in trouble), and self-barring yourself from casinos. Eventually, I read a book from one the the primary writers about gambling addictions (whose name eludes me), who wrote extensively about the differences between "serious social gamblers" (the equivalent of a tennis nut), professional gamblers, and compulsive gamblers. It was very helpful in understanding me, and I eventually left the program (and my wife).

As for the test, I know of no scientific basis for the "20 questions". Even at the end of the exam is proof of it's non-diagnostic abilities. They say that: [ QUOTE ]
Most compulsive gamblers will answer "yes" to at least seven of these questions.

[/ QUOTE ] That most likely is true. But they do NOT say is that most people who answer yes to at least seven of these questions are compulsive gamblers. This I do not believe for the reasons that others have stated here. It is not a proper diagnostic test, and certainly does not do ANYTHING to weed out professional gamblers or successful advantage gamblers.

[steamboatin]

In the case of Born-againers, we are supposed to do it but unfortunetly most of us do a worse job at it then we do at poker.

Ex-smokers and ex-drinkers that act like that don't help their cause much either.

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]
The gambling problem quiz is no exception. It is a relatively crude tool that deals with typical people suffering typical gambling problems. That's why they are careful to only suggest that you may have a problem. Further evaluation could be appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, Gamblers Anonymous doesn't work that way. If you came to a meeting, and you answer 7 questions yes, than you are supposed to be there, and not continuing to come will lead to imprisonment or death. And the psychological criteria for identifying compulsive gamblers is equally weak.

There is no question that GA does good work and is an important tool for compulsive gamblers to get better. However, they are notably weak in making diagnostic decisions.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Toonces,

[ QUOTE ]
As for the test, I know of no scientific basis for the "20 questions". Even at the end of the exam is proof of it's non-diagnostic abilities. They say that:
[ QUOTE ]
Most compulsive gamblers will answer "yes" to at least seven of these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That most likely is true. But they do NOT say that most people who answer yes to at least seven of these questions are compulsive gamblers. This I do not believe for the reasons that others have stated here. It is not a proper diagnostic test, and certainly does not do ANYTHING to weed out professional gamblers or successful advantage gamblers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This cuts straight to the heart of the issue. This is a screening (i.e.: exclusion) test, and not a diagnostic (i.e.: inclusion) test. If you answer "Yes" to 6 or fewer of these questions, it is very likely that you are NOT a compulsive gambler. You've been "screened" (excluded).

But, if you answer "Yes" to 7 or more of these questions, that DOES NOT mean you've been "diagnosed" (included) as a compusive gambler. It means you MIGHT be. Further self-examination, honest discussions with family members, and perhaps a consult with a mental health professional would be the responsible way to follow up on this screening.

Also, it's worth noting that the mental health community rarely uses the word "ever" in diagnostic criteria. DSM-IV diagnostic criteria require both scope and persistence, e.g.: "patient has exhibited at least four of the following seven symptoms, persisting over a period of at least three months...."

Questionnaires like this one are valuable for screening, but they are not -- and are not intended to be -- strictly diagnostic.

Cris

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]

This cuts straight to the heart of the issue. This is a screening (i.e.: exclusion) test, and not a diagnostic (i.e.: inclusion) test. If you answer "Yes" to 6 or fewer of these questions, it is very likely that you are NOT a compulsive gambler. You've been "screened" (excluded).

But, if you answer "Yes" to 7 or more of these questions, that DOES NOT mean you've been "diagnosed" (included) as a compusive gambler. It means you MIGHT be. Further self-examination, honest discussions with family members, and perhaps a consult with a mental health professional would be the responsible way to follow up on this screening.


[/ QUOTE ]
I see your point, Cris. Sadly, in my experience, it was not used that way in GA. It was used as proof you are in the right place, and even as a badge of honor. At the beginning of meetings, the questions were read one at a time, with the current reader expected to answer the question he was reading. And an answer of no was almost seen as a sign of denial.

Even those who answered 4-6 were thrown in as "likely" compulsive gamblers, as they probably weren't answering honestly enough.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it's worth noting that the mental health community rarely uses the word "ever" in diagnostic criteria. DSM-IV diagnostic criteria require both scope and persistence, e.g.: "patient has exhibited at least four of the following seven symptoms, persisting over a period of at least three months...."

Questionnaires like this one are valuable for screening, but they are not -- and are not intended to be -- strictly diagnostic.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris, assuming you are a mental health worker, can you post the DSM-IV criteria for compulsive gambling, as I seem to recall it was also lacking in differentiation.

[george w of poker]

i have a gambling problem. i don't know what to do with all the money i win.

oh!

[steamboatin]

I bet it is similar to our situation in Real Estate. It is ilegal to discriminate based upon familiar (family is what I am after) staus. Okay what's a family? A mommy, daddy and children? Not in Massechucshetts! ( you know where I mean regardless of spelling!) Race, religion, sex, age, national origin, those are easy, just treat everyone the same, no problem. How do you not discriminate against something without a clear definition?

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. If someone thinks he might have a problem, the ONLY safe thing to do is to check it out.
In medicine there are two major types of errors, false positives and false negatives. False negatives are much more dangerous.
Let's say your doctor thinks you might have blocked arteries because of various symptoms. You do an EKG, and it turns out negative. The EKG finds no convincing evidence of blockage. The doctor is not convinced and wants you to take more exhaustive and expensive tests. You decide to save the money and skip them. Two months later you have a heart attack and die. That's the danger of a false negative.
A false positive would be the EKG says you have heart problems, and the doctor suggests more tests. You take an angiogram, and it says you're OK. You wasted some time and money, but you're alive. You also feel better because you know you don't have blocked arteries.
With psychological problems the tests are MUCH less accurate than EKGs and other medical tests. Far more errors occur, and the consequences of errors are not as extreme. However, it still pays to do whatever it takes to determine whether problems exist.
In other words, if you think you may have a problem, get the best information you can, even if it costs you a little time, money, or embarrassment.
Regards,
Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just about to write the exact same post, but Dr. Al beat me to it. That's two out of two psychologists surveyed. He may or may not have a problem, but his responses merit further investigation.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Doctors do a fair bit of analysis of EV in medical decision-making. One example is gastric bypass. The procedure has a mortality rate of between 0.5% and 2% depending on the individual's risk factors, which is pretty high. Not having the procedure may mean death from illnesses related to obesity, or serious loss of functioning. Doctors and patients have to weigh the risk of the procedure vs. the risk of not performing the procedure. This sort of analysis of EV goes into almost every medical decision.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

All psychological diagnoses require both 1) symptoms and 2) impairment from these symptoms. This means that if you are terrified of cats, but it does not interfere with your life in any real way, you do not have a phobia. A person using alcohol every Sunday afternoon is not have an alcohol abuse problem, but that same person who drinks that same amount every Sunday and gets into fights when drunk or gets into trouble on the job likely has an alcohol abuse problem. Keeping this in mind, the DSM-IV criteria (A & B must be met) are as follows:

<font color="blue">DISCLAIMER: The following is available in the public domain and is being provided for informational purposes only. Diagnosis should not be made without consultation with a licensed mental health professional. </font>

A. Persistent and returned maladaptive gambling behavior as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1) is preoccupied with gambling (e.g., preoccupied with reliving past gambling experiences, handicapping are planning the next venture, were thinking of ways to get money with which to gamble)
2) needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement
3) has repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stopped gambling
4) is restless or irritable was attempting to cut down were stopped gambling
5) gambles as a way of escaping from problems were relieving a dysphoric mood (e.g., feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, depression)
6) after losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even (quote chasing" one’s losses)
7) lies to family members, therapist, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling
8) has committed illegal acts such as forgery, fraud, theft, or embezzlement to finance gambling
9) has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of gambling
10) relies on others to provide money to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling

B. The gambling behavior is not better accounted for by a Manic Episode

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

I have seen many alcoholics and addicts in my office who can honestly look themselves in the eye and say they don't have a problem. This means nothing at all.

You are correct about AA (and I presume you mean Alcoholics Anonymous and not pocket aces), it is not for everyone. In general, however, AA has been demonstrated to be the most successful form of treatment for alcoholism. I refer all my substance abusing patients to AA/NA. Not all will benefit, but the referral is definitely +EV as almost none will suffer any consequences, making the cost of such referral negligible.

EDIT: There is no financial benefit to me as a psychologist from making a referral to AA, in fact, the patient is likely to get better faster and require fewer services from me.

-Dr. Milo

[jaybee_70]

[ QUOTE ]
All psychological diagnoses require both 1) symptoms and 2) impairment from these symptoms

[/ QUOTE ]
As we go through the 20 question checklist, a yes is just the first indicator. We should follow up every yes with an examination of any/all negative consequences. Yes answers with repeated negative consequences is a much stronger indication of compulsive behavior. As an example, one of the questions is: Have you ever gambled longer than you planned to. Probably a yes for any gambler, but if you are doing it because the table conditions are perfect the consequences are much different than if you are chasing losses. Dr. Drew on the radio show Love Line is an addiction specialist and frequently states that a working definition for addictive behavior is continuing to do something despite negative consequences. Don't be afraid of yes answers, but be honest and aware of the consequences related to them. Even if the table is perfect, you may have a problem if you can't walk away knowing that their will be a negative consequence for staying ie. wife at home, or meeting friends for lunch etc.

Joe

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Doctors do a fair bit of analysis of EV in medical decision-making. One example is gastric bypass. The procedure has a mortality rate of between 0.5% and 2% depending on the individual's risk factors, which is pretty high. Not having the procedure may mean death from illnesses related to obesity, or serious loss of functioning. Doctors and patients have to weigh the risk of the procedure vs. the risk of not performing the procedure. This sort of analysis of EV goes into almost every medical decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you say but this is different from the point I was making.

Doctors normally consider EV either explicitly or implicitly when weighing different treatments, including the do-nothing option. In fact they are given tons of study results concerning outcomes to help them do just that.

My point is I believe they tend to follow a two-step process:

1. Make the best possible diagnosis.

2. Treat that diagnosis in the best possible way.

That is exactly what they did and it was mathematically incorrect in this instance. I think most people would be very resistant to the idea that the diagnosis--the condition that the physician actually decides to treat--could be primarily determined by statistics on treatment outcomes.

I speculate that the partitioning of the thought process was further ensured by the fact that each diagnosis represented a different specialty and a different actual doctor. Diagnosis would be a joint activity but treatment would be left to only the relevant specialist.

[BusterStacks]

I think the bigger issue here is whether you consider poker gambling. I personally hate gambling in the sense that I think of it (i.e. sports betting, craps, slots, scratch-its). However, I love poker. I think poker is only gambling if you suck at it. This does of course leave the door open for every compulsive gambler to rationalize playing poker, but then again that's not so bad. Sometimes I wonder who these people are that are supplying the money to the big winners on this site, and to a lesser extent, to me. Are they playing poker with their rent money? Do they have a serious problem with gambling? What will become of them if/when they go broke? But there is no tangible reality to thinking like that, so I try not to let it bother me.

I dunno, this post is rambling so let me offer my comments on another matter: AA. Ok, here's what you do if you're an alcoholic: STOP DRINKING. I hate how AA is so tied in with Christianity as if people are not strong enough to take the bottle out of their mouth themselves, they need God. It's as if people are using God as some kind of crutch. Although when you say it like that, I guess it makes perfect sense...

[SittingBull]

records,don't u?? Have U put in the necessary time to seriously study whatever form of gambling U participate in?? If NOT,U are a COMPULSIVE gambler--u gamble because u enjoy it for its own sake--whether u lose or win doesn't really matter--EVEN if u THINK it does. If U have diligently studied your 'trade',U are definitely NOT a compulsive gambler. Note that being a "compulsive gambler" does NOT equate to being an "additive" one.
If U are supporting your family,paying your bills,and spend sufficient time with your wife and children,U ARE NOT AN ADDITIVE GAMBLER.
Happy Pokering, /images/graemlins/smile.gif
SittingBiull

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
records,don't u?? Have U put in the necessary time to seriously study whatever form of gambling U participate in?? If NOT,U are a COMPULSIVE gambler--u gamble because u enjoy it for its own sake--whether u lose or win doesn't really matter--EVEN if u THINK it does. If U have diligently studied your 'trade',U are definitely NOT a compulsive gambler. Note that being a "compulsive gambler" does NOT equate to being an "additive" one.
If U are supporting your family,paying your bills,and spend sufficient time with your wife and children,U ARE NOT AN ADDITIVE GAMBLER.
Happy Pokering, /images/graemlins/smile.gif
SittingBiull

[/ QUOTE ]

translator please? ugh, that post gave me a headache.

[jdl22]

Here's my problem both with the test you mention and the GA version, they are not set up in the slightest for +EV gamblers. There was a thread awhile back here where I asked if it was possible for a winning player to be addicted and that was met with many responses in the affirmative. These evaluation tests are designed for the 99.9% of the gambling population that are -EV gamblers not for the relatively few of us who are +EV gamblers.

We have several psychologists here, not sure if you all are trained in this sort of thing but perhaps a new set of questions could be written for +EV gamblers.

To demonstrate my point here are your questions:
1) is preoccupied with gambling (e.g., preoccupied with reliving past gambling experiences, handicapping are planning the next venture, were thinking of ways to get money with which to gamble)

If you post here you are basically doing this. Posting hands and going over them is "reliving past gambling experiences," discussing which games you should be playing could be considered "planning your next venture" but both of these things are helpful to the player and perfectly fine.

2) needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement

Depends on your definition of excitement but this can be answered yes for many here. Most players when they move up play "scared money." I was doing this at levels as low as 2/4 just a few months ago. Now that I play no limit if I play 2/4 my heartbeat won't change at all even in the bigger pots. If I jumped up to 40/80 I would once again have that same sense. Again this seems to simply be a matter of being more familiar with your games and is necesary for bankroll management I think.

3) has repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stopped gambling

This question is valid for people here and I would think should be on any questionnaire aimed at positive expectation gamblers and even professionals.

4) is restless or irritable was attempting to cut down were stopped gambling

I don't understand this question. Perhaps it's saying that when cutting down on the gambling the gambler feels restless and irritable. Again this would be valid for us.

5) gambles as a way of escaping from problems were relieving a dysphoric mood (e.g., feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, depression)

Also a valid question.

6) after losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even (quote chasing" one’s losses)

A little odd for people playing every day. I think within a session this could be valid for all of us - if you repeatedly play longer than you would have because you are down then that could indicate a problem.

7) lies to family members, therapist, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling

Many professional players here do this simply to avoid the stigma and because others don't understand that money can be made playing poker. I think one of the reasons for avoiding the issue with family members and so forth is precisely because there are many gambling addicts. But I think the problem isn't that the gambling is taking place it's that that is the occupation. As for the therapist while I've never been to one I would say that concealing this type of thing could be a problem.

8) has committed illegal acts such as forgery, fraud, theft, or embezzlement to finance gambling

Obviously if this is the case it's a serious problem for anybody.

9) has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of gambling

The reason behind this question is important. As they say in my econ classes everything you do has an opportunity cost. Hence Jonny Chan has lost educational and career opportunities due to gambling in that sense. The important thing here is whether or not you missed out on these opportunities because you sat down with a loved one, thought through your options and decided being a professional or semiprofessional poker player was the better career option or if you lost your job or got kicked out of school because you were repeatedly showing up late for work/missing classes because you were up all night playing poker. In the first case there is no problem but clearly with the second case there could be.

10) relies on others to provide money to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling

If a person really is a +EV poker player this shouldn't happen other than staking so they can play a higher game or because they lost their bankroll due to some non poker related event. I think this is a valid question for a +EV player questionnaire because so many people believe they are winning players when they are not and this denial itself is indicative of a problem.

[steveyz]

[ QUOTE ]
Most compulsive gamblers will answer "yes" to at least seven of these questions.

If I counted right I answered yes 9 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that it says that most compulsive gamblers answer "yes" to at least 7 of the questions, it doesn't say that most of those who answer "yes" to at least 7 of the question are compulsive gamblers. There is a significant difference.

I wouldn't worry about it, I really doubt you are a compulsive gambler.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Recall that meeting the diagnostic criteria is not enough to make a diagnosis. The individual muat also be experiencing distress or impairment in functioning in some other part of his or her life as a result of the gambling. Some +EV professional gamblers could check off 5 of the criteria, but not be diagnosed because their gambling does not impact their life or relationships negatively. This is why doctors and psychologists exist. Diagnosis cannot be made by checklist, it is a process of examining each individual's situation. If diagnosis was as simple as following a checklist, there would be no need for professionals. You could just go to a website, check off boxes in a decision tree and get your meds dispensed through the USB port in the front of your computer.

I listed the criteria not to diagnose, but to recognize when gambling MAY be an issue.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

I am fond of saying that I never gamble, I play poker. The difference is that I never participate in -EV gaming. At the lodge where I play the boys will sometimes each toss out $20, deal out seven cards and see who wins. I never participate, since it is a 0-EV game, and therefore a waste of time.

[SittingBull]

Sorry about the error--is the post more understandablenow??
SittingBull

[adios]

I'm not sure if a compulsive gambler that is on the plus side is a big problem. I don't consider myself to be compulsive gambler. BTW Tommy Angelo doesn't keep records according to him so that isn't the litmus test in my mind but I certainly advocate keeping records.

[MMMMMM]

Your answers indicate a rational and disciplined approach to gambling for the most part, so I really don't see any significant problem.

It seems the GA people did not make considerations for professional or semi-pro gamblers when devising this test.

Also note that the statement "Most compulsive gamblers will answer yes to at least seven of these questions" is not at all the same statement as "Most who answer yes to at least seven of these questions are compulsive gamblers".

I think it was either Mike Caro or Arnold Snyder who once wrote something like "your problem isn't gambling, your problem is that you havent been winning (or winning enough) at gambling."

It sounds like you have been going through a long learning curve and have improved your approach and results along the way. So complex a discipline as profitable gambling naturally involves a significant learning curve, including the accumulation of lots of specific knowledge, and the "learning yourself" part wherein you become skilled at overcoming the psychological pitfalls that claim many other intelligent but less disciplined gamblers. Taking losses frequently and rationally and maturely, and continuing to bet in a scientific manner designed to show long-term profits, isn't always easy but it is essential to long-term success. Putting everything together successfully and profitably should be expected to take many years.

BTW I scored higher on that test than you;-)

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]
Recall that meeting the diagnostic criteria is not enough to make a diagnosis. The individual muat also be experiencing distress or impairment in functioning in some other part of his or her life as a result of the gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then, if you combie the criteria with a loved one that has a conflict with you about with the amount of time you spend gambling, and now it's an addiction?

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

It is not necessarily an addiction, note the term is not Gambling Addiction, but is Pathological Gambling. Now before you get your undies in a twist about the "Pathological," it means only that there is a problem or some distress over the gambling. The problem may be yours and it may be your partner's. I would not diagnose Pathological Gambling in the +EV poker player who is managing his BR well, not tilting, not losing his house and generally functioning within his family, even if his wife hates his playing poker. I see the +EV professional (or amateur) poker player as having a job, not being a gambler. I consider poker a second part-time paying job that is also a nice hobby, and would treat the couple as I would any other couple where there is a conflict over work and the relationship.

Example: I came home last week at 2 a.m.from winning a single table tourney ($225). I had to shower off the cigarette stink and wind down. Couldn't sleep because I was running through the final five minutes of the tourney where I went from 5x the BB to chip leader in an amazing rush. The next morning came just 2 hours later and my wife was pissed that I didn't help her with the kids. That is NOT pathological gambling, but we did discuss it and work out an agreement about mornings so I can sleep in on post-poker mornings and take on more responsibilities other mornings.

Diagnosis is never as easy as following a checklist. Lists of symptoms are only guidelines to follow in making a diagnosis.

[semipro50]

The book you were refering to which compares a serious social gambler to a "tennis nut" is "When Luck Runs Out" by Dr. Robert Custer and Harry Milt. I think this book should be read by anyone who thinks he may have a gambling problem

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]
The book you were refering to which compares a serious social gambler to a "tennis nut" is "When Luck Runs Out" by Dr. Robert Custer and Harry Milt. I think this book should be read by anyone who thinks he may have a gambling problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, semipro. It is an excellent book and one of the few I've seen that helps you understand the signs of compulsive gamblers in a positive EV light.