Abstract
In this paper, we provide a brief response to Braverman et al. (J Gambl Stud. doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9428-z, 2013b) critique of our ‘Theoretical Loss’ metric as a measure of monetary gambling intensity (Auer and Griffiths in J Gambl Stud. doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9376-7, 2013a; Auer et al. in Gaming Law Rev Econ 16:269–273, 2012). We argue that ‘gambling intensity’ and ‘gambling involvement’ are essentially the same construct as descriptors of monetary gambling activity. Additionally, we acknowledge that playing duration (i.e., the amount of time—as opposed to money—actually spent gambling) is clearly another important indicator of gambling involvement—something that we have consistently noted in our previous studies including our empirical studies on gambling using behavioural tracking data. Braverman and colleagues claim that the concept of Theoretical Loss is nullified when statistical analysis focuses solely on one game type as the house edge is constant across all games. In fact, they state, the correlation between total amount wagered and Theoretical Loss is perfect. Unfortunately, this is incorrect. To disprove the claim made, we demonstrate that in sports betting (i.e., a single game type), the amount wagered does not reflect monetary gambling involvement using actual payout percentage data (based on 52,500 independent bets provided to us by an online European bookmaker). After reviewing the arguments presented by Braverman and colleagues, we are still of the view that when it comes to purely monetary measures of ‘gambling intensity’, the Theoretical Loss metric is a more robust and accurate measure than other financial proxy measures such as ‘amount wagered’ (i.e., bet size) as a measure of what players are prepared to financially risk while gambling.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013a). An empirical investigation of theoretical loss and gambling intensity. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9376-7.
Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013b). Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 647–660.
Auer, M., Schneeberger, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Theoretical loss and gambling intensity: A simulation study. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 16, 269–273.
Braverman, J., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & Shaffer, H. J. (2013a). Using cross-game behavioral markers for early identification if high-risk internet gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 868–877.
Braverman, J., & Shaffer, H. J. (2012). How do gamblers start gambling: Identifying behavioural markers of high-risk internet gambling. European Journal of Public Health, 22, 273–278.
Braverman, J., Tom, M., & Shaffer, H. J. (2013b). Tilting at windmills: A comment on Auer and Griffiths. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9428-z.
Broda, A., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., LaBrie, R. A., Bosworth, L. B., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Virtual harm reduction efforts for Internet gambling: Effects of deposit limits on actual internet sports gambling behaviour. Harm Reduction Journal, 5, 27.
Delfabbro, P. H., King, D. L., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Behavioural profiling of problem gamblers: A critical review. International Gambling Studies, 12, 349–366.
Dragicevic, S., Tsogas, S. B., & Kudic, A. (2011). Analysis of casino online gambling data in relation to behavioural risk markers for high-risk gambling and player protection. International Gambling Studies, 11, 377–391.
Gray, H. M., LaPlante, D. A., & Schaffer, H. J. (2012). Behavioral characteristics of Internet gamblers who trigger corporate responsible gambling interventions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,. doi:10.1037/a0028545.
Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Internet gambling, player protection and social responsibility. In R. Williams, R. Wood, & J. Parke (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet gambling (pp. 227–249). London: Routledge.
Griffiths, M. D., & Auer, M. (2011). Online versus offline gambling: Methodological considerations in empirical gambling research. Casino and Gaming International, 7(3), 45–48.
Griffiths, M. D., & Whitty, M. W. (2010). Online behavioural tracking in internet gambling research: Ethical and methodological issues. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3, 104–117.
LaBrie, R. A., Kaplan, S., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Inside the virtual casino: A prospective longitudinal study of internet casino gambling. European Journal of Public Health, 18, 410–416.
LaPlante, D. A., Kleschinsky, J. H., LaBrie, R. A., Nelson, S. E., & Shaffer, H. J. (2009). Sitting at the virtual poker table: A prospective epidemiological study of actual internet poker gambling behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 711–717.
LaPlante, D. A., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Population trends in internet sports gambling. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2399–2414.
Nelson, S. E., LaPlante, D. A., Peller, A. J., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Real limits in the virtual world: Self-limiting behavior of internet gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 463–477.
Wardle, H., Moody, A., Griffiths, M. D., Orford, J., & Volberg, R. (2011a). Defining the online gambler and patterns 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., et al. (2011b). British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Auer, M., Griffiths, M.D. Theoretical Loss and Gambling Intensity (Revisited): A Response to Braverman et al. (2013). J Gambl Stud 31, 921–931 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-014-9463-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-014-9463-4