Features and impact of poker

2.1        Evidence in favour of the liberalisation of online gambling regulation provided to the committee during the course of this inquiry centred on three key premises: first, that online poker differs from other forms of online gambling and should therefore be regulated differently; secondly, that prohibition does not prevent Australian consumers from accessing offshore services and rather, regulation offers important protection to consumers; and thirdly, prohibition of online poker in Australia represents an unjust restriction on the right of individuals to participate in a widely recognised and accepted leisure activity. It was also argued that prohibition rather than regulation removes the opportunity for government to collect substantial revenues from the activity.

2.2        Those who provided evidence in support of the current regulatory approach argued that prohibiting online poker, along with other online gambling activities, provides a consistent regulatory approach. Further, it was argued that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that online poker differs from other forms of online gambling in its potential to cause gambling-related harms. Online poker was also seen to be a 'gateway' activity which could lead to participation in other forms of gambling.

2.3        This chapter will explore the evidence presented in relation to whether poker is different to other forms of online gambling, and the benefits and harms that may be associated with the playing of online poker.

2.4        Chapter 3 will then examine the benefits and weaknesses of differing regulatory approaches, including both prohibition and the liberalisation of regulation to allow for a licensed industry.

Features of poker

2.5        It was widely argued by those in favour of allowing the provision of online poker services in Australia that poker is different to other forms of gambling and should be regulated accordingly. In particular, many submitters argued that poker is a game of skill rather than chance, or at least a mixed game of skill and chance. Submitters also highlighted the impact of the 'peer-to-peer' nature of poker where participants play against each other rather than a casino ('the house').

Peer-to-peer

2.6        The role of the house in poker was highlighted by submitters who argued that poker differs from other forms of gambling. For example, the Australian Online Poker Alliance (AOPA) submitted that 'not all gambling is equal and as a nation we cannot take a "one size fits all" legislative approach when looking at different forms of gambling'. AOPA noted that in poker, players compete against each other rather than the house. As such, the house does not have a 'vested interest' in the outcome of games. Rather, 'the house is remunerated by taking a small percentage of the pot the players are playing for, a small percentage of the entry fee for a tournament or a set charge for using the table'. This is in contrast to other casino games such as roulette and blackjack where the casino is remunerated by taking the money lost by players. AOPA described this as 'a key difference that needs to be understood when legislating in relation to poker'.[1]

2.7        This view was also put to the committee by many online poker players. Mr James Devine, for example, stated that:

Put simply, poker is fundamentally different to other forms of gambling due to the one difference that poker players do not play against the house or the casino—they play against other players. This may seem like a simple difference, yet, for those who understand, this changes the game entirely.[2]

2.8        AOPA submitted that poker players are able to clearly identify, prior to beginning a game, how much they will be charged by the house to participate. This amount is not dependent on the results of their game and all players pay the same amount regardless of whether they win or lose. AOPA described this as 'a consumption tax' applied to players depending on how much they use the service provided by the house (i.e. how many games they play).[3]

2.9        AOPA concluded that for other casino games where players compete against the house, the player has 'no chance of winning' over the long term. It stated that the rules of these games are such that the house has a 'mathematical advantage which is impossible to overcome'. AOPA submitted that 'no length of time and no amount of skill will ever overcome the fact that the rules of the game are against you'.[4]

Skill

2.10      A number of submitters argued that poker, as a game of strategy and skill, should be regulated differently to other forms of gambling. For example, AOPA submitted that due to poker involving a mixture of luck and skill, a more skilful player will always beat a less skilful player over a period of time. That is, 'the ratio of luck to skill in poker is inverse to the length of time that somebody plays'. AOPA stated that:

If you were to play one hand against somebody, there is a good chance that either player will win depending on the cards they are dealt. However, once these players play a larger amount of hands/sessions against each other the luck between two players will even out making it neutral. This allows the more skilled opponent to win.[5]

2.11      The impact of peer-to-peer dynamics on the likelihood of skill overcoming chance was also highlighted by iBus Media Limited. It submitted that:

The skill and strategy component is evidenced by the fact that, in the long run, all players are equally likely to receive the same amount of "good" and "bad" cards and will have to use skills like strategy and mathematics to improve their chances of winning against their opponents (being other players).[6]

2.12      Mr Luke Brabin similarly submitted that due to the peer-to-peer nature of poker, successful poker players who demonstrate a skill with mathematics are not excluded for performing consistently well. Mr Brabin stated:

Whilst in the online sports betting and horse racing markets, a player who tends to be successful is quickly excluded from being able to place bets with corporate bookmakers, that course is not followed in poker because the structure of the game means the host is not prejudiced by the success of a particular player.[7]

2.13      The same point was highlighted by the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance and MyChoice Australia which stated that:

Poker is a game of mathematical skill and strategy whereby the intellectual challenge and honing of the players' intellectual capacities and abilities are rewards of the game. Though the element of chance remains, multiple studies have conclusively established that the primary element of poker is skill which can be honed over time and is crucial to long-term success.[8]

2.14      Further, it was noted that a number of studies have been conducted on the role that skill plays in poker success and it was found that 'the influence of luck decreases sharply when longer-term periods of play are observed'. The Australian Taxpayers' Alliance and MyChoice Australia stated that one of these studies concluded that:

...the unequivocal finding is that poker is a game of skill...given that poker is a complex skill, it is somewhat surprising that even elementary instructions and limited practice had an effect [on successful outcomes]. The reason that poker appears to be a game of luck is that the reliability of any short session is low...Luck [random factors] disguises the fact that poker is a game of skill. However, as these studies show, skill is the determining factor in long-term outcome.[9]

2.15      Another study, conducted by the University of Rotterdam in conjunction with the University of Amsterdam and VU University (Amsterdam), examined 456 million player-hand observations over a year's worth of online games. This study concluded that skill is 'a highly predictable indicator of success and that the role of skill dominated chance after 1,500 hands of play—a point reached within just 19–25 hours'.[10]

2.16      The Australian Taxpayers' Alliance and MyChoice Australia also noted that some other jurisdictions have determined that poker is a game of skill rather than luck. For example, the Federal District Court of Brooklyn issued a ruling to this effect in 2012.[11] However, Ms Jenny Williams, former Chief Executive Officer of the UK Gambling Commission, told the committee that in the UK, poker is recognised as a game of both skill and chance, but due to the element of chance it is regulated along with other gambling products. Ms Williams stated:

Basically, the UK position is to start from the position that, if there is any chance consideration and prize, it's gambling and that would need a licence. We don't start from the product base at all; we start from the characteristics of gambling. Is this a thing that's gambling? If it's gambling, it needs specialist regulation, and so poker is covered by that. It's recognised in the UK that it is both skill and chance but, because it has the element of chance, that makes it subject to gambling regulation.[12]

2.17      A number of individuals who play online poker made submissions to the committee which emphasised the role of skill in the game. Mr Crispin Rovere submitted that 'the notion that poker is primarily a game of luck is entirely spurious'. Mr Rovere explained that:

On any given hand luck plays a role as players cannot choose what cards they are dealt or what cards come out on the felt. Hands that are played optimally can lose and often do. However, over the course of many hands players of higher skill level will always beat players of lower skill level. There is no person who plays poker regularly, regardless of skill level, who would argue that a player's long-term results are primarily a matter of luck.[13]

2.18      Submitters also provided the committee with personal anecdotes regarding the development of a variety of skills and the contribution these skills make in achieving success as a poker player. For example, Mr James Devine submitted that:

Unlike most casino games or forms of gambling, poker is an immensely complicated game that is a mixture of skill and chance. For me, learning poker has been a beautiful learning curve that never ceases to amaze me. The more that you learn and study the game, the more you realise just how complex it really is. The game requires a strong understanding of probability, which means that you actually get to put into practice what you learnt in 10th grade maths. If you really want to learn the game you need to understand odds and ratios, be able to quickly calculate combinations of hands and study the probabilities of different scenarios occurring in different card run outs. The maths alone is great for keeping your brain active.[14]

2.19      Similarly, another submitter stated:

Poker, like many other games is one that is easy to learn but challenging to master. It requires a lot of analytical skill. Improving these skills is the challenge. One benefit of poker is improving logical thought processes, mathematical ability and general clarity. Like many card games, the participants must think about what they are doing, study and practice to get better. Poker keeps you learning as the game and its theory evolves.[15]

2.20      The committee also received a number of submissions which emphasised the range of beneficial skills required for, and developed during, online poker including: mathematical skills, 'relationship skills' or the ability to engage with a variety of people, 'reading bluffers' or the ability to detect when another player is bluffing, networking, and resilience.[16]

2.21      Dr Sally Gainsbury and Professor Alex Blaszczynski offered a more cautious approach to describing poker as a skills-based game. They noted in their submission that 'arguably a skilled player can use bet size, implied odds, bluffing and 'reading' the response of other players, in a way to increase chances of a positive winning/winning outcomes'. Further, studies have demonstrated that 'skilled players achiever higher average rates of return. However, they noted that 'there is a tendency among some poker players to view this as a skill game rather than gambling'.[17]

2.22      Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski submitted that if poker players overestimate the role of skill, and therefore their chances of winning, it can lead to excessive expenditure and negative consequences. They stated that:

When there is a skill element included in gambling, gamblers are more likely to develop irrational beliefs which can lead to problematic behaviours, particularly when players over exaggerate their skill, or the role of skill in determining outcomes (MacKay et al., 2014). Online poker players may also be more resistant to seeking assistance with gambling-related problems, including self-imposed limits, self-exclusion, or treatment (S. Gainsbury, Suhonen, & Saastamoinen, 2014; Wohl, Young, & Hart, 2005).[18]

2.23      This was echoed by The Salvation Army Australia which noted that although there is evidence to support that an element of skill is involved in long-term success, the 'illusion of control' or a belief that skill can determine the outcome of a game creates cognitive distortion. This can result in:

...problem gamblers overestimating their probability of winning or attributing their wins to skill, but then attributing their loss to bad luck or the need to further develop their skills.[19]

2.24      The Salvation Army Australia also expressed concern that online poker sites emphasise the element of skill involved in poker in order to encourage the illusion of control. It concluded that:

...the skill component of poker is not a protective factor against harm from gambling disorder, but can instead instil cognitive distortions which play a central role in the development and maintenance of gambling disorder.[20]

Benefits of online poker

2.25      It was argued that online poker should be exempt from legislative prohibitions not only because it differs from other forms of gambling but also because it offers benefits to players as a result of these differences. Some of these benefits include lower costs in comparison to other forms of gambling such as land-based poker, the ability to derive an income from poker, and personal and social enjoyment associated with engagement in leisure activities.

2.26      Much of the evidence provided to the committee was anecdotal and Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski noted that the benefits to individuals arising from involvement in online poker have not been widely researched. They noted that this is a limitation of current gambling research and recommended that further research be undertaken in the context of identifying gambling-related harms. Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski acknowledged that a proportion of online poker players reported that online gambling contributes to their income, which would likely be perceived as a benefit.[21] Dr Gainsbury stated that:

Our research suggests that the majority of people don't have any problems relating to gambling and poker, so we expect the reason that they're playing is that they're receiving some sort of benefit from it.[22]

2.27      Professor Blaszczynski also told the committee that, broadly speaking, there are some benefits of gambling. These benefits include socialising and entertainment. Professor Blaszczynski went on to comment that:

Poker is a social game. It's a competitive game, and people obviously derive some benefit from it. In my view, it's similar to alcohol. The majority of people consume alcohol in a responsible way, with occasional lapses in judgement. It doesn't mean that they require treatment or that significant harms occur, although there is potential for those significant harms...With gambling, the difficulty is in trying to assess the direct costs and then putting a cost onto the indirect costs, which are emotional distress, stresses, loss of savings, depression et cetera...my view would be that if there were no benefits to be derived from these behaviours then people wouldn't engage in them on such a large scale.[23]

Lower costs and more control over spending

2.28      Submitters argued that in comparison, the costs associated with playing online poker are significantly lower than those associated with playing land-based poker in gambling venues.

2.29      AOPA submitted that one of the benefits of online poker is that players are able to 'manage how much they spend playing poker. For the majority of players the cost of online poker is extremely low when compared to playing poker in a club or casino'.[24] Similarly, Mr Oliver Gill Gaber commented that 'online poker provides access to an average of over an hour of entertaining game play per buy-in for a poker tournament with games available with a minimum buy-in of less than a dollar'.[25]

2.30      AOPA submitted that information compiled from the world's largest poker site indicated that 75 per cent of online tournaments are played for a buy-in[26] of $10 or less. In addition, many sites offer free tournaments and the lowest buy in cost for a tournament is 11 cents. AOPA stated that 80 per cent of online ring games[27] are played for a Big Blind[28] of 50 cents or less and the lowest ring games available have a Big Blind of two cents (players can sit at the table with one dollar).[29]

2.31      A number of submitters provided the committee with anecdotal evidence of their average online poker spending. For example, Ms Carol Ford stated that:

I am not a big time player. I play 1 and 2 cent blinds. I tried playing the free chip version but people do not play sensibly. As they have nothing to lose they just gamble big and often with no thought. I want to be able to think about what is going on. I would quite happily spend $20 a week playing but I have not needed to. My original stakes of US $100 has doubled in the 3 years I have been playing. I generally play for an hour or so each day and some days I win, others I lose. I will quit if I lose $4 on any given day.[30]

2.32      Similarly, Mr Robert Munro submitted that his online poker playing:

...costs me from 2 to 5 dollars...and last up to 3 or 4 hours depending on how well I do. On nights that I am at home I can often play online in which case I play 45 player sit and go tournaments for a cost of 25 cents ( taking up to an hour and a half ). If I play a ring game I limit my buy in to $2 playing 1 cent 2 cent games.[31]

2.33      Submitters also compared their low spends on online poker to the large amount of money spent on other forms of gambling and leisure activities. Mr Joshua Meale, for example, commented that he had watched people playing poker machines at the local club or casino and 'some of them spend $300 to $500 at a time sometimes more, I always say to them you should try playing poker online you could play for months with that amount of money'.[32] Mr Gill Gaber also commented on the cost of online poker compared to other activities and stated that:

Online poker is an incredibly cheap form of entertainment in terms of average spend per hour for recreational gamblers compared to other gambling games. Seeing a movie at the cinema costs $20 for 2 hours-worth of entertainment at a cost of $10 per hour. With $20, you could play 10 separate $2 poker tournaments and have ten or more hours-worth of entertainment and that is assuming that you don't win any prizes at all, most players will win some prizes if they play 10 games.[33]

2.34      Many submitters also noted that along with lower costs, online poker allowed them to better manage their spending on the game. Mr James Greenwood commented that:

Another factor that allowed me to gamble responsibly was the use of a mathematical concept known as bankroll management, whereby a player only risks a small fraction of his poker bankroll (money allocated for poker) at any one time and adjusts the stakes he plays according to a set percentage of their bankroll, thus largely eliminating the chance of losing their entire bankroll. Online poker also has the added benefit of being able to easily check your wins and losses history through the sites, allowing players to easily keep a realistic notion of their results.[34]

2.35      Mr Brabin also told the committee that playing online allows professional gamblers to ensure that the 'variance' is more level, or lower, through the playing of multiple tables. Mr Brabin stated:

Online is better because, professionally, you want to get as much turnover down as possible. The speed of play is a lot faster; you can play multiple tables. I can play four tables versus one table, and the speed of play is three times faster so I can get a lot more turnover—more money down—to get my percentage up. The variance is actually lower as well. Because you are playing three or four tables, you could lose on one table but win on another two so the variance is more level—not as high—so it is not as emotionally hard to deal it.[35]

2.36      Other submitters similarly told the committee that the ability to play multiple games without the significant charges associated with venue-based poker allowed amateur players to 'hone their skills'. Submitters also highlighted the comparatively faster speeds of online poker games. For example, Mr Richard Jessep submitted that:

For me, online poker is an excellent proving ground so to speak. This is because of the fact that online you are able to play many more hands per hour than in live games, which greatly speeds up the learning process. Also, I am able to develop my skills, learn from my mistakes, and review my play on my computer without feeling intimated by far superior players at casino's who would beat me easily at this stage of my development.[36]

2.37      In contrast to the evidence received about the low cost of engaging in many online poker games, submitters pointed to the high cost of playing poker at land-based venues. It was submitted that the lowest cost tournament available at the Crown Casino in Melbourne costs $60 to enter while the lowest cost tournament at Sydney's The Star is $220 to enter. In addition, the smallest Big Blind available at the Crown Casino for a ring game is two dollars (players need $50 to sit at the table) and the small Big Blind at the Star is $3 (players need $100 to sit at the table).[37]

2.38      AOPA concluded that:

By removing online poker we are telling players that if they want to continue playing the game that they must play for a higher stake than they may be comfortable with. This is clearly not the government's intention with The Act but it is a risk that must be considered.[38]

2.39      Similarly, Mr Brabin described the commission charged by casinos as 'extortionate' with venues able to charge as much as 10 per cent, 'which makes it almost impossible to win'.[39]

Gambling related harms

2.40      The committee also received evidence in support of the continued prohibition of online poker in Australia. This evidence largely focused on gambling-related harms which can arise from online gambling activities more broadly, rather than online poker specifically. It was acknowledged that further research on the harms associated with online poker playing is needed. Submitters offered their support for legislative prohibition as a harm minimisation measure but encouraged further research in order to ensure the implementation of evidence-based regulatory models.

Diagnosis, treatment and contributing factors

2.41      The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) commended the Australian Government for its work in ensuring that legislation maintains paces with the rapid changes occurring in the gambling industry. It stated that it had offered its support for the measures included in Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017 to strengthen enforcement mechanisms related to offshore gambling.[40]

2.42      The RANZCP stated that problem gambling has been recognised as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a disorder similar in brain origin, comorbidity and treatment to substance abuse. It noted that a 'related condition of internet gaming disorder has also been considered for inclusion' and that 'online gambling and poker could be considered as a manifestation of one or both conditions'.[41]

2.43      The Salvation Army Australia also cited contemporary Australian research which has identified certain inherent features of online gambling that increase the risk of consumers developing gambling problems. These include:

• ease of access and constant accessibility;
• electronic money transfers;
• privacy;
• anonymity; and
• extended periods of engagement without interruption.[42]

2.44      The RANZCP similarly warned that 'the rise of interactive and online gambling is having devastating consequences' with young people who are heavily involved in web-based activities being readily recruited online as new gamblers. Further, the difficulties suffered by existing problem gamblers are being exacerbated by engagement with online gambling. In particular, online gambling sites are accessible 24 hours a day, and do not require a person to leave their house in order to access their services.[43]

2.45      The Salvation Army Australia also expressed concern regarding the ease of accessibility that 'allows people to gamble 24 hours a day, 7 days a week through online avenues'. The Salvation Army Australia expressed particular concern in relation to the impact that online gambling has on children. It stated that 'the availability of online 'free-to-play' casino and other betting games are already acting to normalise gambling to children'. Further, there may be a correlation between children engaged in free-to-play casino-based games transitioning to pay-to-play online gambling.[44]

2.46      The RANZCP warned that 'despite promising research, there is a dearth of evidence-based treatments for problem gambling which makes other harm minimisation measures, such as legislation, all the more important'. The RANZCP recommended that an increase in research into 'evidence-based screening, assessment, treatment, prevention and early intervention is required' in order to develop an 'evidence-based model of regulation which incorporates consumer-protection and harm-minimisation features'.[45]

2.47      Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski explained that definitions of harm in gambling research are relatively imprecise and refer to 'adverse consequences' or 'exacerbations of harms associated with gambling behaviours'. Further, 'research tends to use scores on problem gambling screens as a proxy measure for harm'. As such, the use of threshold scores to define a gambling problem 'results in harms to low risk subpopulations being overlooked'. Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski stated that recent findings indicate that '48 per cent of total harms resulting from gambling are accounted for by this category'. As a result, 'assessing harms associated with, and those causally related to online poker is difficult with data interpreted as indicative rather than conclusive'.[46]

Harm associated with online gambling

2.48      The Department of Social Services noted the findings of the O'Farrell Review which identified that the rate of problem gambling for online gamblers is three times higher than that of problem gambling across all other platforms including land-based gambling. The O'Farrell Review found that 41 per cent of online gamblers were considered to be 'at risk' gamblers, while less than 20 per cent of land-based gamblers were considered to be 'at risk'. The Department of Social Services explained that this means that these gamblers experience harms to physical and mental health, financial problems, and are also more likely to be betting across other gambling platforms.[47]

2.49      The O'Farrell Review also found that gambling harms not only affect the individual engaged in gambling, but often extend to their family and friends, with intergenerational harm likely to be seen. Research by the Problem Gambling Treatment and Research Centre found that the children of problem gamblers are ten times more likely to develop problematic gambling behaviours as those with non-gambling parents.[48]

2.50      The Department of Social Services also noted the findings of the Productivity Commission's 2010 report into gambling which found that the social costs of problem gambling are estimated to be at least $4.7 billion a year.[49]

2.51      Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski submitted that one-third of past-month online poker players surveyed in their 2017 study were classified as experiencing moderate or serious gambling problems based on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). This was lower than amongst the broader online gambling cohort. When surveyed as to which form of gambling had contributed the most to any gambling-related harms, only 4 per cent of the broader cohort reported poker, and amongst the past-month online poker players, only 9 per cent reported poker. Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski concluded that this:

...suggests that among the respondents in our sample, poker made a relatively small contribution to the harms arising from gambling in comparison to other gambling activities, including among those who played online poker. The relatively low levels of problems related to poker in this research are not indicative of the broader population of poker players.[50]

2.52      Dr Gainsbury told the committee that this research 'does suggest that it [online poker] is one of the least common in terms of problematic forms of gambling'.[51]

2.53      Mr Rovere attributed the lower number of online poker-players experiencing gambling-related harms to a lack of irrational beliefs. Mr Rovere stated:

Online poker contributes a very small proportion to the overall level of problem gambling in Australia...the reason is probably that few poker players hold fundamentally irrational beliefs about the nature of gambling. Poker players inherently seek to beat the odds, not win despite them. Accordingly, most poker players attribute long-term losses to the same thing they would attribute long-term successes – skill.[52]

2.54      However, previous research has also identified that online poker players can experience gambling-related harms. Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski noted that a 'nationally-representative Australian telephone prevalence survey' found that:

• amongst past-year online gamblers, those classified as moderate-risk or problem gamblers were significantly more likely to have played poker as compared to low-risk gamblers;
• low-risk gamblers were significantly more likely to have played poker than non-problem gamblers;
• poker was stated as the main activity related to gambling problems by 12 per cent of online moderate-risk or problem gamblers; and
• poker was attributed to be the source of gambling problems by 6 per cent of non-internet gamblers.[53]

2.55      Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski commented that these results are 'somewhat consistent' with the results of their research in that 'poker was one of the least commonly-stated forms of gambling contributing to problems'. However, they noted that 'it does suggest that individuals with gambling-related problems may engage in online poker, which may contribute to, and exacerbate the experiences of harm'.[54]

2.56      The Salvation Army Australia submitted that studies have demonstrated that predictive factors of excessive online poker playing include:

• negative emotional states such as depression, anxiety and stress; and
• disassociation where a player becomes less informed and attentive in decision-making, which causes them to exceed time and money limits.[55]

2.57      Professor Blaszczynski highlighted that problem gamblers often engage in a number of forms of gambling and that not all forms may be contributing to the problems they are experiencing. Professor Blaszczynski stated:

The more forms of gambling they engage in, the more likely they are to increase their expenditure overall and exceed affordable levels. Quite often what happens is that people will ask what form of gambling to engage in, and it may well be electronic gaming machines. That may be the cause of the problem, but they might identify themselves also as online poker players or online wagering. So it becomes important to try to tease out which are ancillary forms of gambling that people engage in and which are the ones that actually contribute to the significant problems. Many people purchase lottery tickets, but that rarely contributes to significant problems.[56]

2.58      The Salvation Army Australia also noted that a 2016 report had identified that there may be a higher proportion of problem gamblers amongst online poker players than other forms of gambling. And further, studies have identified that online poker has the potential to be an addictive game that may lead to a gambling disorder.[57]

2.59      Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski submitted that commonly used measures such as the PGSI may not accurately capture the problems experienced by poker players. For example, poker players may neglect important life activities when spending long periods of time engaged in the game. Similarly, skilled players may not experience significant financial difficulties related to gambling or irrational perceptions and loss of control, however this activity may still be having a detrimental impact on their lives. Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski stated that 'the negative impacts related to the time spent gambling may not be detected using measures that focus to a greater extent on financial difficulties'.[58]

2.60      Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynski concluded that 'it is recommended that further research examine the experience of gambling-related harms among online poker players, using measure of harm that are appropriate for this population'.[59]

Types of problem gamblers

2.61      Professor Blaszczynski told the committee that in the course of his research, he has identified at least three subgroups of problem gamblers.

2.62      First, those who believe that gambling is a source of income and that they can make money out of it. This includes both professional gamblers and ordinary individuals who believe that gambling is a way to make money. Professor Blaszczynski told the committee that this group 'presents without any sort of psychopathology. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with them, except that they have these particularly erroneous beliefs'.[60]

2.63      Secondly, those who gamble due to emotional vulnerability factors. Professor Blaszczynski stated that these people gamble to 'self-medicate or to escape emotional problems' and that gambling appears to be a secondary issue to other mental health issues.[61]

2.64      Thirdly, individuals who 'engage in sensation-seeking, stimulating-type behaviours' and who are highly impulsive. Professor Blaszczynski stated that these people may have 'some degree of neurotransmitter dysregulation—different reward-punishment regions in the brain'.[62]

2.65      Professor Blaszczynski concluded that all three groups have 'commonalities in terms of irrational or erroneous beliefs about gambling and conditioning factors' however, 'you ought not to consider gamblers as a homogenous group of individuals'.[63]

2.66      Professor Blaszczynski concluded that those who play poker problematically are likely to be those:

...who like to have some degree of competition, like to engage in some skill related games and like that particular milieu. They're not necessarily gambling to escape as compared to someone who has a preference for electronic gaming machines where they just, as they say, get into the zone.[64]

2.67      Professor Blaszczynski also noted that these problem gamblers may also engage in 'impulsive-type bets or chasing money' and 'making poor decisions'.[65]

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page