all-in and bad beat: professional poker players and pathological gambling

All-in and Bad Beat: Professional Poker Playersand Pathological Gambling

Roberta Biolcati & Stefano Passini & Mark D. Griffiths

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Previous research has shown that online poker players may be at a high risk ofdeveloping gambling problems and that there are various personality traits that may beassociated with such risk. An online survey comprising 256 poker players (50.8 % professionalplayers and 49.2 % recreational players) examined various aspects of their poker playingbehavior. The goals of the study were to investigate: (i) the playing motivations of recreationaland professional Texas Hold’em poker players, (ii) the psychological characteristics of onlinepoker players in relation to narcissism, impulsivity, self-esteem, and problem gambling, and(iii) the differences between professional and recreational poker player on these psychologicalvariables. Results showed that only 1.6 % poker players met the DSM-IV-TR diagnosticcriteria for pathological gambling (n=4). Generally, poker players had low scores on narcis-sism and impulsivity, and high scores on self-esteem. Implications for the study of onlinepoker gambling are also discussed.

Keywords Professional poker players . Pathological gambling . Narcissism . Impulsivity .

Self-esteem

Over the last decade, Internet gambling has become increasingly popular (e.g. Griffiths &Barnes, 2008; Kuss & Griffiths, 2012a; Wardle, Moody, Griffiths, et al., 2011; Wood &Williams, 2007; 2011). One of the fastest growing forms of online gambling is online poker(McCormack & Griffiths, 2012). Many factors have been proposed that may help explain therise in the popularity of online poker including the (i) large number of poker tournaments in thetelevised media, (ii) participation by famous and influential people, (iii) the opportunity tolearn to play for free, (iv) the opportunity to gamble for very low stakes, and (v) largeavailability of online poker sites where players can always get a game (Griffiths, Parke,Wood & Rigbye, 2010). Many researchers in the gambling studies field have underlined that

Int J Ment Health AddictionDOI 10.1007/s11469-014-9506-1

R. Biolcati (*) : S. PassiniDepartment of Education Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Filippo Re 6, Bologna 40126, Italye-mail: [email protected]

M. D. GriffithsInternational Gaming Research Unit, Psychology Division, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street,Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK

a minority of online poker players are at a high risk for developing gambling problems (e.g.Cotte & Latour, 2009; Szabó & Kocsis, 2012; Wood, Griffiths, & Parke, 2007) and that evenprofessional poker players can experience gambling problems (Recher & Griffiths, 2012).

Furthermore, a number of studies have shown that Internet gamblers are more likely to beproblematic gamblers as compared with non-Internet gamblers (e.g., Griffiths, Wardle, Orford,Sproston, & Erens, 2009; Shead, Derevensky, Fong, & Gupta, 2012). However, most onlinegamblers also gamble offline and such findings may reflect the fact that problem gamblersengage in a greater volume of gambling across different gambling media and that the internetsimply provides the most convenient and accessible medium for these vulnerable individuals(Wardle, Moody, Griffiths, et al., 2011; Wood, & Griffiths, 2008). There are also many otherlimitations of these studies including the fact the vast majority of them use self-selectedsamples with unrepresentative groups such as university students (e.g., Griffiths et al., 2010;Wood et al., 2007). The use of university students in itself may also be an issue as someresearch has indicated that students in their first year at university may be more susceptible togambling problems than those in their final year (Benson, Norman, & Griffiths, 2012)

Pathological gambling (PG) has been defined as an impulse control disorder characterized byperpetual engagement in maladaptive gambling behaviors, regardless of the arising of detrimentalpersonal consequences (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). However, the most recentconceptualization of ‘gambling disorder’ in the latest (fifth) version of the Diagnostic andStatistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has seen it conceptualized as a behavioraladdiction (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The latest DSM-5 identifies nine symptomsof gambling disorder: preoccupation (i.e. constantly thinks about gambling); tolerance (i.e. alwaysbetting more to achieve the desired excitement); agitation and irritability when attempting toreduce gambling; gambling as an escape from reality; chasing losses (i.e. gambling in order to tryto win back themoney lost); lying about gambling involvement; being unable to control or reducegambling; bailout (i.e. borrowing money from family and friends); and risking one’s ownsignificant relationships. Four out of nine of such criteria are required for the diagnosis ofgambling disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)

Although problem gamblers are a heterogeneous group, some individual factors have beenshown to contribute to the disorder including various personality traits (Brown & Mitchell,2010; Hopley & Nicki, 2010; Parke, Griffiths, & Irwing, 2004). More specifically, someresearch has shown that narcissism is often related to problem gambling (e.g. Lakey, Rose,Campbell, & Goodie, 2008, Lesieur & Rosenthal, 1991; Taber & Chaplin, 1988; Rosenthal,1986). Narcissism is defined as an individual tendency towards over-developed self-admiration and over-estimation of one’s ability leading to beliefs that individuals are betterand/or more effective on various measurable dimensions than what they actually are (Lakeyet al., 2008). However, as Lakey et al. (2008) have pointed out, research studies concerningthe relationship between narcissism and problem gambling have shown mixed findings. Forinstance, some studies have found a high percentage of Narcissistic Personality Disorderamong pathological gamblers (e.g. Blaszczynski & Steel, 1998) while others found norelationship (e.g. Specker, Carlson, Edmonson, Johnson, & Marcotte, 1996).

Kim and Grant (2001) reported high levels of impulsivity among people diagnosed aspathological gamblers. Impulsivity is a construct related to the thought and behavior control(Barratt, 1972; 1994) and is often associated with different types of addictive behaviorincluding alcohol use, cannabis use, and video gaming (Grall-Bronnec et al., 2012; Kuss, &Griffiths, 2012b; Walther, Morgenstern, & Hanewinkel, 2012). Studies have also shown arelationship between impulsivity and problem gambling (Grall-Bronnec et al., 2012); Hopley& Nicki, 2010). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that there is a positive relationshipbetween narcissism and impulsivity (e.g., Rose & Campbell, 2004). Finally, another individual

Int J Ment Health Addiction

factor often studied in relation to problem gambling is self-esteem. Various studies (e.g., Kaareet al., 2009; Volberg et al., 1997) have shown that pathological gamblers have a lower self-esteem than non-problem gamblers. Kaare et al. (2009) state this is because problem gamblingas a self-defeating behaviour and subsequently affects global self-esteem.

Online and professional poker

Although many studies have investigated the psychological characteristics of pathologicalgambling, there have been relatively few concerning online poker and professional poker. Assome scholars (e.g. Hopley, Dempsey, & Nicki, 2012; Recher & Griffiths, 2012; Parke &Griffiths, 2011) have pointed out, professional gamblers share a number of characteristics incommon with pathological gamblers such as the high frequency of time and money spentgambling. Professional poker players are indeed likely to endorse some of the clinical criteriafor pathological gambling, such as preoccupation with and frequency of gambling(McCormack & Griffiths, 2012; Recher & Griffiths, 2012; Wood & Griffiths, 2008).However, there are also many differences. For instance, unlike the vast majority of problemgamblers, many professional poker players do not lose money (Wood, Griffiths, & Parke,2007; Radburn & Horsley, 2011; McCormack & Griffiths, 2012; Parke & Griffiths, 2011;Recher & Griffiths, 2012). Thus, if motivations for gambling generally comprise aspects suchas searching escape, fun, and excitement (e.g. Clarke, 2008; Lee, Lee, Bernhard, & Lee, 2009;Wood & Griffiths, 2007; Wood et al., 2007), some studies have shown that for professionalpoker players gaining money is the most important motivation (e.g. Smith & Preston, 1984;Wood et al., 2007) and that it mediates other motivational variables (e.g. escaping from reality,see Lee et al., 2009). Predictably, a number of studies (McCormack & Griffiths, 2012; Parke &Griffiths, 2011; 2012; Radburn & Horsley, 2011; Recher & Griffiths, 2012) have shown thatrecreational poker gamblers play in a leisurely way whereas professional poker players gamblein an occupational way (i.e., they consider it their job and main source of income).

A number of studies (e.g., McCormack & Griffiths, 2012; Recher & Griffiths, 2012; Parke& Griffiths, 2011; 2012; Wood et al., 2007) have also noted professional poker players pursuestrategies to win in the long run rather than immediately, and that to do this requires specificskills. Hopley and Nicki (2010) specified that online poker (particularly Texas Hold’em) is agame in which a specific skill component can be identified for achieving long-term success.Larkey, Kadane, Austin and Zamir (1997) defined skill as “the extent to which a player,properly motivated, can perform the mandated cognitive and/or physical behaviors for successin a specific game” (p. 596). Papers by Parke, Griffiths and Parke (2005) and Hardy (2006)have outlined the many skills involved in playing poker including skills relating to self-control,problem-solving, critical evaluation, mathematics, money management and people reading.For this reason, poker (and other card games such as blackjack) should not be considered likeother chance-determined gambling activities such as roulette, bingo, scratchcards, or lotteries.

Given the risks identified by the literature of showing that those that engage in onlinegambling appear to be at greater risk of problem gambling and that poker (and especiallyprofessional poker) is a game of skill, the goals of the present research were to investigate: (i)the playing motivations of recreational and professional Texas Hold’em poker players (ii) thepsychological characteristics of online poker players in relation to narcissism, impulsivity, self-esteem, and problem gambling and compare the findings with previous literature, and (iii) thedifferences between professional and recreational poker player on these psychological vari-ables. More specifically, it was hypothesized that Texas Hold’em online poker player wouldnot meet the criteria of DSM-IV-TR definition of pathological gambling and would have lower


levels of impulsivity and narcissism and higher levels of self-esteem than other types ofpathological gamblers identified in the psychological literature. It was also hypothesized thatthese differences would be more emphasized for those players who defined themselves asprofessional rather than as recreational poker players.

Method

Participants Participants (all Italian) were recruited online. This was done via a researchpartner who is a professional poker player and who contacted other Italian players throughthe main online forums for Texas Hold’em online professional poker players. A total of 256Italian online poker players (97.3 % male) participated in an online survey. Participants’ agesranged from 18 to 56 years (M=27.10, SD=6.29). The participants were born in the north(32.4 %), the centre (25 %), and the south (42.6 %) of Italy. The majority (76.6 %) declaredthey were unmarried, with 21.5 % married or had a live-in partner, with the remaining 2 %being divorced, separated, or widowed.

As regards their level of education, 5.9 % declared they had finished middle school, 60.2 %declared they had obtained a high school diploma, 18 % a bachelor’s degree, 13.6 % aMaster’s degree, and 2.3 % a PhD or equivalent qualification. Occupationally, the majority(31.3 %) declared that their main job was being a poker player. The remaining participantswere students (28.9 %), self-employed (13.3 %), clerical workers (9.4 %), unemployed(8.2 %), factory workers/craftsmen (3.5 %), or other unspecified jobs (5.5 %). As regardssocio-economic status, just over one-third (37.1 %) declared they had an annual income of lessthan 15,000 Euros, 27.3 % between 15,000 and 30,000 Euros, 10.2 % between 30,000 and45,000 Euros, 8.6 % between 45,000 and 60,000 Euros, and,16.8 % more than 60,000 Euros.

Measures

An online survey was constructed using LimeSurvey software (i.e. http://www.limesurvey.org). The questionnaire comprised the following measures:

Online poker game mode All players were asked: (i) whether they defined themselvesprofessional poker players or recreational poker players; (ii) the main reasons for playingpoker: a maximum of three choices between “for the competitive nature of the game,” “tosocialize,” “to earn money,” “for fun,” “to escape from reality,” “because it is exciting,” “todevelop skills,” “to relax,” “to combat boredom,” “to try one’s luck” or “for the sake of achallenge;” (iii) their monthly income from poker: between “0-€500,” “€501-€1,000,”“€1,001-2,000,” “€2,001-€5,000,” “5,001-€10,000,” “€10,001-€20,000,” “more than€20,000” or “at a loss;” (iv) whether poker is their main source of income; (v) which wastheir main poker game: “Cash game,” “MTT (Multi Table Tournament),” “SNG (Sit and Go)”and “HUSNG (Heads Up);” (vi) how many times they played offline and online poker (peryear) from 1=“never” to 4=“every day;” (vii) how many tables they open (when online) andthe average amount of money that they wagered per game session; (viii) the length of the gamesession (in hours); (ix) from what age they had played poker; and (x) whether they always usedthe same nickname or they had changed it.

Frequency of other forms of gambling Participants indicated the frequency of other forms ofgambling (from 1=“never” to 4=“always”) such as “betting on horses, dogs, or other


http://www.limesurvey.org/

http://www.limesurvey.org/

animals;” “bowled, shot pool, played golf, or some other game of skill for money”). The list ofgames was taken from the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; Lesieur & Blume, 1987).

DSM-IV-TR for Pathological Gambling Data were collected before the publication of theDSM-5. Therefore, participants completed the 10 ‘yes/no’ questions listed in the DSM-IV-TRfor pathological gambling (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Examples of questionsinclude: “the respondent is preoccupied with gambling (e.g., preoccupied with reliving pastgambling experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, or thinking of ways to getmoney with which to gamble)” and “needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money inorder to achieve the desired excitement has repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back,or stop gambling.” Persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior is indicated byendorsing five (or more) “yes” responses to the ten questions.

Narcissism Participants completed the 16-item version of the Narcissistic PersonalityInventory (NPI, Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006). The NPI comprises 16 forced-choice dyads.Participants chose either the non-narcissistic (recoded as “0,” e.g., “I prefer to blend in with thecrowd”) or the narcissistic response (recoded as “1,” e.g., “I like to be the center of attention”).As in the original studies, an NPI index was computed as the mean of all the items (α=.69).

Impulsivity Participants completed a 15-item reduced version of the Barratt Impulsivity Scale(BIS) developed by Spinella (2007) on the basis of the 30-item BIS-11 (Patton, Stanford, &Barratt, 1995). The BIS is a self-rating scale measuring impulsivity rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (from 1=“rarely/never” to 4=“almost always”). Examples of items are: “I act onimpulse” and “I don’t pay attention.” A BFI index was computed as the mean of all the items(α=.83).

Self-esteem Rosenberg (1965)The Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is a 10-item instrument in whichparticipants respond to each item on a 4-point Likert-scale (from 1=“strongly disagree” to4=“strongly agree”). RSES is a well-validated measure of global feelings of self-worth (seeBlascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Examples items include: “On the whole, I am satisfied withmyself” and “All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure” (reversed item). As in theoriginal studies, a RSES index was computed as the mean of all the items (α=.84), so thathigher totals reflect higher self-esteem.

Results

Half of the participants (50.8 %) declared they were professional poker players while theremainder declared they were recreational poker players (49.2 %). The most frequently chosenmotives for playing poker were “to earn money” (92.2 %), “for the competitive nature of thegame” (46.1 %), “to develop skills” (37.9 %), “for fun” (31.3 %) “for the sake of a challenge”(20.3 %) and “because it is exciting” (9.8 %). The remaining motives were chosen by less than2 % of participants. In relation to their monthly income from poker, 30.9 % of players declaredthey earned “0-€500,” 21.1 % “€2,001-€5,000,” 14.1 % “€501-€1,000,” 11.3 % “€5,001-€10,000,” 10.9 % “€1,001-€2,000,” 5.9 % “€10,001-€20,000,” 4.3 % “make a loss,” and 1.6 %claimed they earned “more than €20,000.” More than the half of participants declaredthat poker was their main source of income (54.7 %), and the majority (61.5 %) declared theyplayed the “Cash game” followed by the “MTT,” (25.6 %), “SNG” (8.7 %) and“HUSNG” (4 %).


Participants declared they occasionally played offline poker but frequently played onlinepoker (see Table 1). In relation to typical online poker sessions, participants declared theyopened about 10 tables, wagered about €2,000 and played about four hours per session. Themean starting age for playing poker was 22.69 years. Less than half of the poker players saidthey had used the same nickname throughout their playing career (42.6 %) whereas the otherssaid they had changed it at least once. The results also showed that poker players rarelyengaged in other forms of gambling, apart from the occasional “bet on sports” (see Table 1).

Results showed that only 1.6 % of the poker players (n=4) were pathological gamblers byendorsing five or more of the DSM-IV-TR criteria (see Table 2), with nearly four-fifths of theplayers (78.5 %) endorsing only one or no DSM-IV-TR criteria. The only criterion whereparticipants answered ‘yes’ frequently was chasing (44.5 %). In relation to the personalityvariables, all the participants had low scores on NPI, medium-low scores on BIS, and highscores on RSES (see Table 3).

To further see which factors were most likely to predict problem gambling, a stepwiseregression was carried out using the number of ‘yes’ endorsements on DSM-IV-TR criteria asthe dependent variable. The poker player’s age, level of education and socio-economic status(Step 1), variables related to online poker playing behaviour (e.g., play frequency, sessionspend, etc.) (Step 2), motivations to play poker and frequency of other games played (Step 3),and narcissism, impulsivity and self-esteem (Step 4) were used as independent variables. Ascan be seen in Table 4, in the first two steps no variable was significant. Steps 3 and 4 showedthat the motives “to escape from reality” and “because it is exciting,” other games played, NPI

Table 1 General Means and ANOVA Between Professional and Recreational Poker Players on Poker Onlineand Other Games Played Variables

M SD M PPP M RPP F η2

Frequency of offline poker 1.92 0.59 1.94 1.90 0.21 .00

Frequency of online poker 3.57 0.22 3.77 3.37 30.07*** .11

Open tables 9.50 10.51 11.98 6.94 15.54*** .06

Wagering per session (€) 1,753 4,507 3,181 268 29.60*** .11

Session time (hours) 3.72 2.02 4.17 3.24 13.53*** .05

Beginning age 22.69 5.93C 21.45 23.97 11.99*** .05

Other games played

Cards for money 1.37 .56 1.39 1.35 0.38 .00

Betting on horses 1.09 .33 1.11 1.06 1.14 .00

Betting on sports 1.87 .75 1.87 1.87 0.00 .00

Dice games 1.03 .19 1.05 1.00 0.02 .00

Casinos 1.42 .53 1.48 1.35 4.19* .02

Lotteries 1.28 .50 1.22 1.35 4.65* .02

Bingo 1.18 .41 1.17 1.20 0.33 .00

Stock 1.15 .46 1.19 1.11 2.04 .01

Slot machines 1.12 .40 1.12 1.12 0.01 .00

Bowling, pool, golf 1.20 .47 1.26 1.14 4.20* .02

Note: PPP = Professional poker player; RPP = Recreational poker player

All “other games played” variables extended from 1 to 4

* p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001


and BIS were significant positive predictors of problem gambling. RSES was the onlysignificant negative predictor.

Professional vs. Recreational Poker Players

An ANOVA comparing professional poker players (PPPs) with recreational poker players(RPPs) showed that PPPs played online poker more frequently, played with more tables open,wagered more money, and played longer per poker session (see Table 1). They also started toplay poker at a younger age (21.45 years vs. 23.97 years). In relation to motives for playingpoker, a cross-tabulation showed that the most important motive for both players was “to earnmoney” (100 % PPPs vs. 84.1 % RPPs). This was followed by “for the competitive nature ofthe game” (50.8 % PPPs vs. 41.3 % RPPs), “for fun” (45.2 % RPPs vs. 17.7 % PPPs),

Table 2 General Frequencies andChi-Square Between Professionaland Recreational Poker Players onDSM-IV-TR Symptoms

Note: PPP=Professional pokerplayer, RPP=Recreational pokerplayeraPercentages of participantsendorsing five or more DSM-IV-TR symptoms* p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001

DSM-IV-TR % Yes % PPP % RPP χ2

Preoccupation 7.8 8.5 7.1 0.15

Tolerance 3.9 3.8 4.0 0.00

Escape 2.3 0.8 4.0 2.86

Loss of control 2.3 1.5 3.2 0.75

Withdrawal 3.9 3.1 4.8 0.48

Chasing 44.5 46.2 42.9 0.28

Lying 9.4 6.9 11.9 1.87

Illegal acts 1.2 0.8 1.6 0.37

Risked significant relationships 12.9 16.9 8.7 3.83*

Bailout 1.6 0.8 2.4 1.08

(% of participants≥5)a 1.6 0.8 2.4 1.08

Table 3 General Means and ANOVA Between Professional and Recreational Poker Players on Narcissism,Impulsivity and Self-Esteem (Comparison with previous literature)

Present Research Literature Review (Research on…)

M SD M PPP M RPP F η2 General Population Pathological Gamblers

NPI 0.29 0.19 0.31 0.27 3.26 .01 0.51a; 0.44a –

BIS 1.90 0.43 1.89 1.91 0.06 .00 1.87c; 1.26d; 1.71e 2.36c; 2.64d; 2.40e; 2.54f

RSES 3.17 0.46 3.24 3.09 7.10** .03 3.24a; 3.23a 1.79b ; 2.67f

Note: PPP = Professional poker player, RPP = Recreational poker player, NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory,BIS = Barratt Impulsivity Scale, RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, NPI extended from 0 to 16. BIS and RSESextended from 1 to 4a = Lakey et al. (2008)b = Weinstock et al. (2013)c = Hwang et al. (2012)d = Rodriguez-Jimenez et al. (2006)e = Savron et al. (2007)f = Echeburua et al. (2011)

* p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001.


“developing skills” (46.8 RPPs vs. 29.2 % PPPs) and “for the challenge” (18.5 % RPPs vs.22.2 % PPPs).

Almost all PPPs declared that poker was their main source of income [86.9 % vs. 13.1 % ofRPPs; χ2(1, N=256)=110.76, p<.001]. In relation to the main game played, a cross-tabulationshowed that PPPs played “Cash game” more than RPPs [71.9 % vs. 50.8 %; χ2(3, N=252)=13.37, p<.01] whereas RPPs played more “MTT” (32.3 % vs. 19.5 % PPPs) and “SNG”(12.9 % vs. 4.7 % PPPs). Both professional and recreational poker players said the played“HUSNG” equally (both groups 4 %). There was no difference between groups in whetherthey had always used or changed their poker playing nickname.

The only significant differences between groups on the other types of gambling engaged inwere gambling in “casinos” and on “bowling, pool, golf” where PPPs (M=1.48 and M=1.26,

Table 4 Stepwise Regression Analysis on the Total of DSM-IV-TR Symptoms

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Age .02 .01 .04 .04

Level of education .03 .04 .04 .07

SES -.07 -.10 -.13 -.12

Frequency of life poker .11 .02 -.01

Frequency of online poker .01 .00 .00

Poker monthly income -.06 -.05 -.01

Open tables .05 .05 .05

Average wagering per session (€) .08 .09 .09

Average session time (hours) .09 .07 .06

Starting age of poker .04 -.00 .02

Motives

For the competitive nature of the game -.02 .01

Socializing - - .09 .-05

Earning money - .10 .10

Fun -.01 .01

Escaping from reality .14* .12*

Excitement .19** .17**

Developing skills .08 .09

Relaxing .04 -.03

Staving off boredom .11 .08

Trying one’s luck .04 .01

For the sake of a challenge .05 .06

Other games played .33*** .20**

NPI .14*

BIS .18**

RSES -.19***

R2 .01 .04 .22 .30

ΔR2 – .03 .18*** .09***

F .43 .82 2.64*** 3.60***

Note: SES = Socio-economic status, NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory, BIS = Barratt Impulsivity Scale,RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001


respectively) reported a higher frequency than RPPs (M=1.35, F[1, 255]=4.19, p<.05, η2=.33andM=1.14, F[1, 255]=4.20, p<.05, η2=.33 respectively) and on “played the numbers or beton lotteries” where RPPs (M=1.35) declared a higher frequency than PPPs (M=1.22, F[1,255]=4.65, p<.05, η2=.33). Frequencies related to the endorsement of DSM-IV-TR criteriawere almost the same between PPPs and RPPs apart from “risked significant relationships”where PPPs had a higher frequency of endorsement than RPPs (see Table 2). In relation topersonality variables, there were no significant differences in scores between PPPs and RPPson NPI and BIS but PPPs scored higher than RPPs on self-esteem scores.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine various playing and psychological characteristics ofItalian Texas Hold'em online poker players. In particular, the more specific purpose was toexamine whether this population may be considered at risk of pathological gambling andwhether personality variables (i.e., narcissism, impulsivity, and self-esteem) have a role in thedevelopment of the disorder. Furthermore, the behaviors and psychological characteristics ofself-defined professional and recreational poker players were compared. The results of thepresent study showed that the participants here displayed similar behavioral characteristics(e.g., long and frequent poker sessions) to those described in other studies on online profes-sional poker players (McCormack & Griffiths, 2012; Parke & Griffiths, 2012; Radburn &Horsley, 2011; Recher & Griffiths, 2012). The main reason for playing poker was “to earnmoney.” This specific motive among online poker players is very prominent compared to othertypes of heavy gambler that often cite reasons of “escape” or “boredom” as key motivations forlong periods of gambling (Wood & Griffiths, 2007). The results presented here also demon-strate that poker is the main form of gambling engaged in and that most players do not gambleon other activities and if they do, it is infrequently.

As hypothesized, the majority of poker players not meet the diagnostic criteria for patho-logical gambling with very few players even “at risk” according to the cut-off points proposedby Toce-Gerstein et al. (2003) They defined gamblers into “at-risk” (3–4 criteria), “patholog-ical” (5–7 criteria) and “severe pathological” (8–10 criteria). In the present study only fourparticipants endorsed five or more criteria and four-fifths of the players endorsed less than twocriteria. There are a number of reasons why the prevalence rate of problem gambling amongthis sample was so low. Firstly, Texas Hold’em poker is far more skill-based than other purelychance-determined games such as roulette, bingo, slot machines and lotteries. In short, asplayers become more skilled, they win more money, and therefore do not suffer the negativefinancial consequences that many other forms of gambling can bring when played to excess.The ability and mastery of players are the keystones for winning (Parke et al., 2005; Siler,2010), and poker has been favorably compared to other games of skill such as golf (Croson,Fishman, & Pope, 2008). Secondly, poker also differs from most other types of gamblingbecause the positive feedback and reinforcements (i.e., winnings) are delayed rather thanimmediate. That is, the large financial gains arrive in the long-term and through a strategy andnot via immediate and occasional play. Skill is more likely to be the crucial factor in the long-term outcome (DeDonno & Detterman, 2008; McCormack & Griffiths, 2012; Parke &Griffiths, 2011; 2012; Recher & Griffiths, 2012). As some studies have shown (e.g. Welte,Barnes, Wieczorek, Tidwell, & Parker, 2004), the immediacy of the gratification or displeasurecan facilitate compulsiveness (i.e., the less time delay between the bet and the outcome, thegreater the likelihood that the play can get out of personal control). Thirdly, and perhaps mostimportantly, the motivation for professional poker play is not to escape from reality and from


one’s own life but to be able to make a living from playing. Whereas pathological gamblersengage in a high risk activity that typically shifts their job into the background, professionalpoker players are engaged in an activity that is actually their job. These explanations find someconfirmation in the regression analysis and shows that the symptoms and consequences listedin the DSM-IV-TR criteria are not predicted by any specific characteristics of the online pokergame (e.g., frequency of time of gaming, wagering per session, etc.), but by escape fromreality and excitement as motives for gambling and by the frequency of other gambling played.

By comparing the data in the present study with previous literature on pathological gamblingand the general population (e.g., Denis, Fatseas, & Auriacombe, 2012; Jimaenez-Murcia et al.2009; Lahti, Halme, Pankakoski, Sinclair, & Alho, 2013;Wardle, Moody, Griffiths, et al. 2011),the prevalence rates of problem gambling among poker players were similar to those foundamong the general population Sussman, Lisha, & Griffiths (2011). Also, the scores on thevarious scales personality (i.e., NPI) and psychological characteristic (i.e., RSES, BIS) scalesare similar to those in the general population. Unlike problem gamblers that tend to score highon impulsivity and low on self-esteem, the poker players in this sample – as in the generalpopulation – scored low on impulsivity and high on self-esteem. Scores of pathologicalgamblers on the NPI scale were not found in the literature. However, as seen in the introduction,many studies (e.g. Blaszczynski & Steel, 1998; Lakey et al., 2008) have shown that patholog-ical gamblers are often affected by narcissistic personality disorders. The scores on narcissismby poker players in the present study appear to be similar to those found in the general public.

One of the reasons that impulsivity was low among Texas Hold’em online poker players inthe present study is because such a trait is arguably incompatible with the characteristicsrequired to win (and earn money) in the long-term and to make the playing of poker one’soccupation. Poker players also showed low levels of narcissism. These findings reinforce thehypothesis that the Texas Hold’em online poker players are particular types of gamblers thatdo not have some of the characteristics most frequently associated with pathological gambling.Indeed, even if narcissism is a controversial construct in the study of problem gambling,scholars have theorized about the role of narcissism on problematic gambling. In particular,several authors (e.g. Lakey et al., 2008; Rosenthal, 1986; Taber & Chaplin, 1988) have pointedout that narcissism (in the form of narcissistic personality disorder, NPD) is closely related togambling pathology. In relation to self-esteem, the higher scores attached by participants to thepresent research may be explained as a probable direct consequence of the financial profitsobtained from the game. However, it is also possible that self-esteem is a pre-requisite forpoker, given the relevance in poker of some skills connected to self-esteem: e.g. the self-confidence and self-control needed to bluff (Parke et al., 2005)

The present study also provides a preliminary investigation into the similarities anddifferences between self-defined professional (PPPs) and recreational (RPPs) poker players.The comparison shows that PPPs spend more time playing poker, wager more money, openmore tables and have longest gaming sessions than RPPs. These survey results confirmfindings from qualitative studies (e.g., McCormack & Griffiths, 2012; Recher & Griffiths,2012). The present study also found that the starting age for playing poker was lower for PPPs.All these data suggest that for PPPs, the game activity is more structured, continuous and that itis probably based on a variety of strategies and rules aimed at winning in the long term (Parke& Griffiths, 2011). In relation to the personality variables, self-esteem was higher in PPPs thanin RPPs. These data may again be explained with reference to the financial profits obtainedfrom the game. Another possible explanation could be that the online poker players who had alower self-esteem were more likely to define themselves RPPs rather than PPPs.

The present study is not without its limitations. One key limitation of the present researchwas that the sample consisted mainly of males. This is due to the specific game (i.e., poker)


analyzed as almost all previous studies have found poker playing to be a male-dominatedactivity (e.g., Wood et al., 2007; Griffiths et al., 2010). However, future research needs toexamine female poker playing as there are some behaviors that are likely to differ by gender(for instance, Griffiths et al. 2010 found female poker players were more likely to gender swapwhile playing poker compared to males). Another limitation was that participants wererecruited via specific Texas Hold’em online poker forums (and which may not have beenrepresentative) the classification of whether players were professional or recreational wasbased on self-definition without any third party conformation. Based on the data relating toprofits the players claimed they made, the self-defined status appeared to show good facevalidity (i.e., the professional poker players won greater amounts of money than the recrea-tional players). However, further research needs to compare a sample of real recreational pokerplayers (i.e., those that play occasionally and do not frequent online poker forums) to betteranalyze the differences between professional and recreational poker players. Finally, there areother limitations in the fact that the sample only included Italian poker players (and thereforethe findings may not generalize to poker players in other countries), the sample was self-selecting (and therefore is unlikely to be representative), and the data were self-report (and maysuffer from all the known weaknesses of such a method including recall biases, socialdesirability, veracity of the responses, etc.).

Results of the present study have some implications for the study of gambling and, morespecifically, online poker players. As the literature has pointed out (see Griffiths et al., 2010),online poker is an increasingly popular activity most likely due to an escalating exposure toadvertising for online poker sites, as well as television shows and networks specificallydirected to televising poker tournaments. In general, the results of the present study suggestthat this particular population (i.e., professional online poker players) do not appear toexperience the same risks as other heavy gamblers. For instance, the time frequency spentgambling is not necessarily a predictor of a pathological relationship with the game (anobservation that has also been noted in the problematic online video gaming literature byGriffiths 2010). Indeed, as shown by the regression analysis, neither session time nor timefrequency, are significant predictors of pathological gambling. However, that does not meanthat online poker is not a risky game. Indeed, as the endorsements on DSM-IV-TR criteriashow, the percentage of chasing (a key behavioral characteristic among problem gamblers)was quite high (44 % of the sample). Even if chasing can be probably considered a strategyspecifically linked to Texas Hold’em poker for long-term wins, this symptom should be keptunder control. Furthermore, the results also suggest that they may have some risks related torelationships with other people. Some studies on online poker (e.g., Griffiths et al., 2010;Wood et al., 2007) suggest that online poker may be producing a new type of problem gamblerwhere the main negative consequence is the loss of time and social relationships rather than theloss of money. In this sense, future studies should analyze online poker players as concernsvariables such as relationship styles, sense of loneliness, agreeableness and so on. However, itshould also be noted that the studies by Griffiths and his team were carried out on universitystudents that played poker rather than professional poker players.

Future studies should also investigate control populations to directly compare the TexasHold’em online poker player with the general population as well as other gamblers thepersonality variables examined here as well as other personality traits (e.g., sensation seeking,competitiveness, deferment of gratification) as have been studied elsewhere (e.g., Parke et al.,2004). This would allow for a better understanding of individual risk factors versus protectivefactors for pathological gambling, and also allow for their analysis with reference to differenttypes of gambling. Such studies would provide more detailed information on online gameplayers relevant for prevention and treatment efforts regarding pathological gambling.


References

Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 40, 440–450.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual - text revision (DSM-IV-TRim,2000). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Barratt, E. S. (1972). Anxiety and impulsiveness: Toward a neuropsychological model. In C. Spielberg (Ed.),Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research (pp. 195–222). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Barratt, E. S. (1994). Impulsiveness and aggression. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mentaldisorder (pp. 61–79). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Benson, L., Norman, C., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). The role of impulsivity, sensation seeking, coping, and yearof study in student gambling: A pilot study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 461–473.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman(Eds.),Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115–160). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Blaszczynski, A., & Steel, Z. (1998). Personality disorders among pathological gamblers. Journal of GamblingStudies, 14, 51–71.

Brown, S. C., & Mitchell, L. A. (2010). An observational investigation of poker style and the five-factorpersonality model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 229–34.

Clarke, D. (2008). Older adults’ gambling motivation and problem gambling: A comparative study. Journal ofGambling Studies, 24, 175–92.

Cotte, J., & Latour, K. A. (2009). Blackjack in the kitchen: Understanding online versus casino gambling.Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 742–758.

Croson, R., Fishman, P., & Pope, D. G. (2008). Poker superstars: Skill or luck? Similarities between golf-thoughtto be a game of skill-and poker. Chance, 21, 25–28.

DeDonno, M. A., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). Poker is a skill. Gaming Law Review, 12, 31–36.Denis, C., Fatseas, M., & Auriacombe, M. (2012). Analyses related to the development of DSM-5 criteria for

substance use related disorders: 3. An assessment of Pathological Gambling criteria. Drug and AlcoholDependence, 122, 22–27.

Grall-Bronnec, M., Wainstein, L., Feuillet, F., Bouju, G., Rocher, B., Vénisse, J. L., & Sébille-Rivain, V. (2012).Clinical profiles as a function of level and type of impulsivity in a sample group of at-risk and pathologicalgamblers seeking treatment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 239–52.

Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The role of context in online gaming excess and addiction: Some case study evidence.International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 119–125.

Griffiths, M., & Barnes, A. (2008). Internet gambling: An online empirical study among student gamblers.International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 194–204.

Griffiths, M., Parke, J., Wood, R., & Rigbye, J. (2010). Online poker gambling in university students: Furtherfindings from an online survey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 82–89.

Griffiths, M., Wardle, H., Orford, J., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2009). Sociodemographic correlates of internetgambling: findings from the 2007 British gambling prevalence survey.Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 12, 199–202.

Hardy, T. W. (2006). A minute to learn and a lifetime to master: Implications of the poker craze for collegecampuses. New Directions for Student Services, 113, 33–41.

Hopley, A. A. B., Dempsey, K., & Nicki, R. (2012). Texas hold’em online poker: A further examination.International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 563–572.

Hopley, A. A. B., & Nicki, R. M. (2010). Predictive factors of excessive online poker playing. Cyberpsychology,Behavior and Social Networking, 13, 379–385.

Jimaenez-Murcia, S., Stinchfield, R., Alvarez-Moya, E., et al. (2009). Reliability, validity, and classificationaccuracy of a Spanish translation of a measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling.Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 93–104.

Kaare, P. R., Mõttus, R., & Konstabel, K. (2009). Pathological gambling in Estonia: Relationshipswith personality, self-esteem, emotional States and cognitive ability. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 377–90.

Kim, W. S., & Grant, J. E. (2001). Personality dimensions in pathological gambling disorder and obsessive–compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Research, 104, 205–212.

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012a). Internet gambling behavior. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of CyberBehavior (pp. 735–753). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.


Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012b). Online gaming addiction: A systematic review. International Journal ofMental Health and Addiction, 10, 278–296.

Lahti, T., Halme, J., Pankakoski, M., Sinclair, D., & Alho, H. (2013). Characteristics of treatment seeking Finnishpathological gamblers: Baseline data from a treatment study. International Journal of Mental HealthAddiction, 11, 307–314.

Lakey, C. E., Rose, P., Campbell, W. K., & Goodie, A. S. (2008). Probing the link between narcissism andgambling: The mediating role of judgment and decision-making biases. Journal of Behavioral DecisionMaking, 21, 113–137.

Larkey, P., Kadane, J. B., Austin, R., & Zamir, S. (1997). Skill in games. Management Science, 43, 596–609.Lee, C. K., Lee, B., Bernhard, B. J., & Lee, T. K. (2009). A comparative study of involvement and motivation

among casino gamblers. Psychiatry Investigation, 6, 141–149.Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the

identification of pathological gamblers. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.Lesieur, H. R., & Rosenthal, R. J. (1991). Pathological gambling: A review of the literature. Journal of Gambling

Studies, 7, 5–39.McCormack, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). What differentiates professional poker players from recreational

poker players? A qualitative interview study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10,243–257.

Parke, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Effects on gambling behaviour of developments in information technology:A grounded theoretical framework. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning,1(4), 36–48.

Parke, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Beyond illusion of control: An interpretative phenomenological analysis ofgambling in the context of information technology. Addiction Research and Theory, 20, 250–260.

Parke, A., Griffiths, M. D., & Irwing, P. (2004). Personality traits in pathological gambling: Sensation seeking,deferment of gratification and competitiveness as risk factors. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 201–212.

Parke, A., Griffiths, M., & Parke, J. (2005) Can playing poker be good for you? Poker as a transferable skill.Journal of Gambling Issues, 14. Located at: http://jgi.camh.net/doi/full/10.4309/jgi.2005.14.12 (lastaccessed May 9, 2014)

Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journalof Clinical Psychology, 51, 768–774.

Radburn, B., & Horsley, R. (2011). Gamblers, grinders, and mavericks: The use of membership categorisation tomanage identity by professional poker players. Journal of Gambling Issues, 26, 30–50.

Recher, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). An exploratory qualitative study of online poker professional players.Social Psychological Review, 14(2), 13–25.

Rose, P., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Greatness feels good: A telic model of narcissism and subjective well-being.In S. P. Shohov (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 31, pp. 3–26). Huntington, NY: Nova SciencePublishers.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Rosenthal, R. J. (1986). The pathological gambler’s system for self-deception. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2,

108–120.Shead, N. W., Derevensky, J. L., Fong, T. W., & Gupta, R. (2012). Characteristics of internet gamblers among a

sample of students at a large, public university in southwestern United States. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 53, 133–148.

Siler, K. (2010). Social and psychological challenges of poker. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 401–420.Smith, R., & Preston, F. (1984). Vocabularies of motives for gambling behavior. Sociological Perspectives, 27,

325–348.Specker, S. M., Carlson, G. A., Edmonson, K. M., Johnson, P. E., & Marcotte, M. (1996). Psychopathology in

pathological gamblers seeking treatment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 67–81.Spinella, M. (2007). Normative data and a short form of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. The International

Journal of Neuroscience, 117, 359–368.Sussman, S., Lisha, N., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Prevalence of the addictions: A problem of the majority or the

minority? Evaluation and the Health Professions, 34, 3–56.Szabó, A., & Kocsis, D. (2012). Susceptibility to addictive behaviour in online and traditional poker playing

environments. Journal of Behavioral Addictions , 1, 23–27.Taber, J. I., & Chaplin, M. P. (1988). Group psychotherapy with pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling

Behavior, 4, 183–196.Toce-Gerstein, M., Gerstein, D. R., & Volberg, R. A. (2003). A hierarchy of gambling disorders in the

community. Addiction, 98, 1661–1672.Volberg, R. A., Reitzes, D. C., & Boles, J. (1997). Exploring the links between gambling, problem gambling, and

self–esteem. Deviant Behavior, 18, 321–342.


http://jgi.camh.net/doi/full/10.4309/jgi.2005.14.12

Walther, B., Morgenstern, M., & Hanewinkel, R. (2012). Co-occurrence of addictive behaviours: Personalityfactors related to substance use, gambling and computer gaming. European Addiction Research, 18, 167–174.

Wardle, H., Moody, A., Griffiths, M. D., Orford, J., & Volberg, R. (2011). Defining the online gambler andpatterns of behaviour integration: Evidence from the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010.International Gambling Studies, 11, 339–356.

Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., Griffiths, M. D., Hussey, D., & Dobbie,F. (2011). British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.

Weinstock, J., Massura, C. E., & Petry, N. M. (2013). Professional and pathological gamblers: similarities anddifferences. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 205–16.

Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M.-C. O., & Parker, J. C. (2004). Risk factors forpathological gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 323–335.

Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). A qualitative investigation of problem gambling as an escape-basedcoping strategy. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 80, 107–25.

Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2008). Why Swedish people play online poker and factors that can increaseor decrease trust in poker websites: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Gambling Issues, 21, 80–97.

Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Parke, J. (2007). Acquisition, development, and maintenance of online pokerplaying in a student sample. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 354–61.

Wood, R. T., & Williams, R. J. (2007). Problem gambling on the internet: Implications for internet gamblingpolicy in North America. New Media & Society, 9, 520–542.

Wood, R. T., & Williams, R. J. (2011). A comparative profile of the Internet gambler: Demographic character-istics, game-play patterns, and problem gambling status. New Media & Society, 13, 1123–1141.


all-in and bad beat: professional poker players and pathological gambling

Documents