A reasonably good self-test for Pathological Gambling

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

National Council on Problem Gambling - Self Test

This is a self-test that I think, in general, is a pretty good one. Most tests for "Pathological Gambling," a mental health diagnosis under the current nomenclature, are a bit over-inclusive and would likely put many +EV poker players in the category "pathological."

I think a reasonable adjustment for the +EV poker player would be to look critically at question 1 which refers to spending a lot of time thinking about and planning gambling experiences (which is likely a yes for most 2+2ers), question #2, which discusses increasing stakes (which is the goal of many 2+2ers) and #6, which refers to "returning another day to get even." Of course a +EV gambler does not return the next day to "get even" per se, but I'm not sure this one really applies to daily or near-daily +EV poker players.

If you take this test, do so honestly and without any "+EV Gambler Adjustment." I scored a 3 (yes to 1, 2 &amp; 6), which these folks said was not to the level of "Pathological Gambling," but might indicate past or present problem gambling. I am not terribly concerned about a 3 in my case, but a 4 or 5 would raise red flags if items that are not part of a regular +EV gambler's life are included. More importantly, I would be concerned if a person answered YES to even one question from the following (in white <font color="white"> 4, 5, 8, 9 or 10 </font>).

Enjoy,

Dr. Milo (a real-life clinical psychologist)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I got a 2.

[BusterStacks]

6

[EjnarPik]

Got a 7, ouch.

I'm not concerned though, but that probably indicates that I am also in denial. I'm [censored].

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Rhis test is not perfect and should not substitute for a consultation with a psychologist, but I think it would be very hard to score a 7 without having a problem controlling your gambling. A score of 7 certainly indicates the need for a meeting with a psychologist.

Please reach out for help. If you do not have a problem, you've lost nothing but an hour or so of your time. This is a small price to pay when compared to the risks involved in pathological gambling.

[reubenf]

I scored a 3, answering yes to: 1, 2, 7. Thanks for the link!

[AtlBrvs4Life]

I received a 3. I don't have a gambling problem I swear! Or a denial problem! Time to go use my poker winnings on InterPoker at their online casino.

[submariner]

To me, the first question is, do I consider playing poker (over the long term) gambling?

As for question 2, I thought the important idea in it was increasing stakes to get the same excitement . I don't play poker for excitement to begin with (I enjoy reading about it, studying it, but actually playing is pretty boring). Moving up in stakes as a natural progression in a poker "career" is not relevent to this question, in my opinion.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, the first question is, do I consider playing poker (over the long term) gambling?

As for question 2, I thought the important idea in it was increasing stakes to get the same excitement . I don't play poker for excitement to begin with (I enjoy reading about it, studying it, but actually playing is pretty boring). Moving up in stakes as a natural progression in a poker "career" is not relevent to this question, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fairly valid argument, but I find that after moving up to 3/6, I can no longer get my interest up when playing $0.50/1 or $1/2. I checked off #2. Despite moving up being a normal progression, it also is a risk factor.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, the first question is, do I consider playing poker (over the long term) gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

if you don't consider playing poker in the long run gambling, you are wrong. it most certainly is gambling.

cheers!