Interested in helping develop research?
Thanks
Dr Dan Frings and the team at LSBU
Questions we want to explore
1) What do you think about the idea of research looking at what makes gambling ok or a problem – i.e. looking at risk factors and protective factors for gambling? Would it be relevant?
2) Is the idea of looking at peoples self-concept as a gambler (or better, players, etc.) relevant? Why (or why not?)
3) Are the social connections we have with others relevant? Why (or why not?) We are planning to use online questionnaires to collect data, and pay people to take part.
4) What do you think would encourage people to take part?
5) What do you think we could do to help ensure people provide honest responses?
6) What do you think would discourage people from taking part?
1) What do you think about the idea of research looking at what makes gambling ok or a problem – i.e. looking at risk factors and protective factors for gambling? Would it be relevant?
.................bankroll is only protection.
2) Is the idea of looking at peoples self-concept as a gambler (or better, players, etc.) relevant? Why (or why not?) yes.
3) Are the social connections we have with others relevant? Why (or why not?) We are planning to use online questionnaires to collect data, and pay people to take part.
.........all gambling is social. look at handedness, sexual orientation, novelty seeking, attend any gambler's breakfast meeting.
4) What do you think would encourage people to take part?
........money
5) What do you think we could do to help ensure people provide honest responses?
brevity.
6) What do you think would discourage people from taking part?
Quote: ResearchLSBU1) What do you think about the idea of research looking at what makes gambling ok or a problem – i.e. looking at risk factors and protective factors for gambling? Would it be relevant?
Yes, sounds interesting. You might have a challenge in identifying and engaging people who have been "ruined" by gambling, and those might be some of your most relevant subjects.
Quote: ResearchLSBU2) Is the idea of looking at peoples self-concept as a gambler (or better, players, etc.) relevant? Why (or why not?)
Self concept? Sure, okay. I think the population of gamblers will first divide into something like casual/social, chronic/hobbyist and "professional" or something like that, and then there will be a spectrum of "self-concept" within each category.
I question whether "playing poker" is not fundamentally different than playing blackjack and other casino games (slots and video poker, and sports betting. Poker can be more of a social activity, particularly home poker games. Casino gambling (blackjack, slots, etc) is a more solitary activity requiring lots of time in a casino (or online casino) - and friends and family can't tell how you are doing.
People who play in professional poker tournaments are also a different animal - an individual's tournament winnings or lack thereof are posted online and are searchable by friends and family (tournaments winnings of almost 500,000 people are publicly posted online.) On the other hand, there is public glory in doing well.
Sports betting may be different as well. These kind of gamblers may be couch potatoes who watch sports on television/media constantly.
I am rambling, but the message is that "Gambling" refers to many diverse activities that may be dissimilar for the purposes of your study.
Quote: ResearchLSBU3) Are the social connections we have with others relevant? Why (or why not?) We are planning to use online questionnaires to collect data, and pay people to take part.
Yes, they are. Married vs unmarried. Family men/women vs. loners.
I think for chronic/hobbyist gamblers you might find that many (but not all) gamble out of lonliness or need for social interaction and, also, mental stimulation. Going to a casino several times a week and talking with the other regulars and dealers/pit bosses will be a part of their motivation.
Casual gamblers might more often gamble on an outing with friends as a social activity or during a vacation. Or play in a periodic poker game for social reasons.
"Professional gamblers" include professional poker players, card counters, and advantage players of all types -successful or not.
They have a bankroll and "loss of bankroll" is an event that is hard to ignore. Hard-core types will start to borrow money and sleep on couches of friends, etc. -and the friends are sometimes other professional players/gamblers.
Quote: ResearchLSBU4) What do you think would encourage people to take part?
1. Courtesy, always
2. A small nominal payment if the time requirements for participants is significant.
3. Anonymity.
Quote: ResearchLSBU5) What do you think we could do to help ensure people provide honest responses?
I don't think this will be a problem, in general. Maybe asking about annual financial losses could be a problem -everyone tends to understate that a bit, just human nature. Not sure you can avoid that. But I think honesty will generally be the rule.
Quote: ResearchLSBU6) What do you think would discourage people from taking part?
a) If they sense that your study is ideologically-driven and biased (e.g., Gambling is bad (or good); gamblers are losers in life; etc.)
b) If your study is juvenile or poorly conceived and/or executed. Do your homework first, so your study and questions are well-structured and reflect a knowledge of the subject matter. And so that your terminology is reasonably well-defined. No one wants to waste their time on a poor quality study.
c) Possibly if your study is overly invasive. Ex: I personally would not mind giving you access to my Facebook site but others might. I don't know.
2) Is the idea of looking at peoples self-concept as a gambler (or better, players, etc.) relevant? Why (or why not?)........................................................... possibly attitude from the beginning is critical
3) Are the social connections we have with others relevant? Why (or why not?) We are planning to use online questionnaires to collect data, and pay people to take part...................................... I'd think you would find most people begin gambling due to social connections; also what type of gambling, such as playing the slots
4) What do you think would encourage people to take part?....................... reward
5) What do you think we could do to help ensure people provide honest responses?.............. good luck on that
6) What do you think would discourage people from taking part? ................................... many things but especially fear of taking part turning into something that would be used against them
7] use the usage 'bettor' , when talking to US audience , see link, and check against other such
https://www.google.com/search?q=british+spelling+bettor+better&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab
Quote: ResearchLSBUWe are a group of researchers based at London South Bank University. We are planning to undertake some work looking at how people think of themselves as a gambler (or a better, or a player, etc). We are also interested in looking at how these self-concepts impact on people’s gambling behaviour. We are also looking for aspects of social interactions which help people stay in control, but also risk factors which may signal a problem. All good research should start with the views of the people who have lived experience of the subject. As part of our research planning, we are really interested to hear what people who bet/gamble actually think about the questions we are exploring! To help us achieve this, we’d love to invite you to answer as many (or as few) questions from the list below to tell us what you think. This should only take a few minutes, and you’ll be helping to inform best-practice in the gaming/gambling community! We’d encourage comments on people’s comments- but please keep these respectful! If you would prefer to comment privately, please just email us at research. lsbu @ gmail or if you have any questions or concerns you may contact fringsd @ lsbu. ac. uk . This is similar to a focus group on getting an idea of what people would like to see in terms of research being done.
Thanks
Dr Dan Frings and the team at LSBU
Questions we want to explore
So, I'm not reading previous responses just yet, in order to keep my opinion separate. Sorry for any duplication that causes.
Quote:1) What do you think about the idea of research looking at what makes gambling ok or a problem – i.e. looking at risk factors and protective factors for gambling? Would it be relevant?
There is a lot of research already out there, trying to determine this, but I don't think it's definitive, and I'm not sure it's particularly accurate. Every study or trope seems to over-emphasize the drama of addiction and the need to prevent the behavior. There's relatively little acknowledgement of the range of gambling behaviors, tolerance or seeking of risk, base needs being satisfied or served, and the complicating motivations of money, ego, fame, boredom, and popularity in the inherent risk/reward structure.
The amount of relevance would depend on
identification of pertinent variables and methodology.
The accuracy of your subject grouping, because there are distinct differences, but identifiable trends, among sub-groups, with some overlap.
And the design of an open-ended study, rather than something designed to advance or refute a particular stance.
I would think you will find a list something similar to, if you categorize by type:
Non-gambler
Casual gambler
Social gambler
Competitive gambler
Serious gambler
Legacy gambler
Intellectual gambler
Professional gambler
Impulsive gambler
Compulsive gambler
Addicted gambler
It's possible for people to be in more than one category, and move in and out of categories depending on mood and circumstances. Some of those would be "ok", some "problem". The challenge is to not follow the herd and lump it all under "problem ".
If you want me to break those down by observable characteristic and example, I can, but I'm already writing a wall-o-text and it's only question 1. It's also not necessarily the best way to break them out, but it's roughly how I think of people when evaluating players.
Quote:2) Is the idea of looking at peoples self-concept as a gambler (or better, players, etc.) relevant? Why (or why not?)
Depends on what you're trying to find out. If it's WHY people gamble, in the cosmic sense, it's essential. If you're doing a market survey for placement of a new Grosvenors, other demographics will be more relevant. If you're trying to sort out addiction from impulse from emotion, self-concept is the crux of it. If you're looking for the elusive sweet spot in designing a game that's simple, has some semblance of fairness, and is addictive, it's pertinent but not primary.
Quote:3) Are the social connections we have with others relevant? Why (or why not?) We are planning to use online questionnaires to collect data, and pay people to take part.
Social connections, or lack of same, are a sizeable subgroup of motivation, but not universal. Crosses several types.
Lots of lonely people jamming pennies into slots, making casino friends, just interacting. Pay to play while being social, just for companionship. Lots of people only go with friends or spouse, won't play alone. Other people only play alone, but interact with strangers and workers fine. Others shut everyone out around them while they play. Others video plays to put up on youtube. Just a few behaviors, there are dozens more, that reflect social cues and awareness.
Quote:4) What do you think would encourage people to take part?
Genuine interest in the topic itself by the researchers, some purpose in participating beyond hearing themselves talk, some indication of anonymity, a small amount of pay for their time, but an appreciable prize also, for which an entry is only available to participants.
Quote:5) What do you think we could do to help ensure people provide honest responses?
See above. And Avoid multiple choice or set responses whenever possible. Much tougher methodology for you, to analyze and excerpt from anecdotes, but you want to be accurate and relevant, you can't pre-shape the data beyond basic demographics.
Quote:6) What do you think would discourage people from taking part?
Reserving an answer on this til later.
There is a real guy by this name who researches this subject.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/about-us/people/people-finder/dr-daniel-frings
Quote: ResearchLSBUWe are a group of researchers based at London South Bank University. We are planning to undertake some work looking at how people think of themselves as a gambler (or a better, or a player, etc). We are also interested in looking at how these self-concepts impact on people’s gambling behaviour. We are also looking for aspects of social interactions which help people stay in control, but also risk factors which may signal a problem. All good research should start with the views of the people who have lived experience of the subject. As part of our research planning, we are really interested to hear what people who bet/gamble actually think about the questions we are exploring! To help us achieve this, we’d love to invite you to answer as many (or as few) questions from the list below to tell us what you think. This should only take a few minutes, and you’ll be helping to inform best-practice in the gaming/gambling community! We’d encourage comments on people’s comments- but please keep these respectful! If you would prefer to comment privately, please just email us at research. lsbu @ gmail or if you have any questions or concerns you may contact fringsd @ lsbu. ac. uk . This is similar to a focus group on getting an idea of what people would like to see in terms of research being done.
Thanks
Dr Dan Frings and the team at LSBU
Questions we want to explore
1) What do you think about the idea of research looking at what makes gambling ok or a problem – i.e. looking at risk factors and protective factors for gambling? Would it be relevant?
2) Is the idea of looking at peoples self-concept as a gambler (or better, players, etc.) relevant? Why (or why not?)
3) Are the social connections we have with others relevant? Why (or why not?) We are planning to use online questionnaires to collect data, and pay people to take part.
4) What do you think would encourage people to take part?
5) What do you think we could do to help ensure people provide honest responses?
6) What do you think would discourage people from taking part?
1) I've had some interesting conversations about this. One standard I proposed was, "this person would be better off if gambling never existed." But my friend, who is normally not very bright, pointed out a couple of counter examples. For example, most people might be better off (more physically fit, more mentally fit) if video games or TV were never invented. So what, are we supposed to do, live like Spartans?
Would it be relevant to what? (This applies to every time you ask that.)
2) Maybe. It's pretty murky. I know a lot of gamblers seem to see gambling as cool or glamorous. For example, they think it's cool to wear clothing that identifies them as a gambler. In some cultures, especially Asian, it's looked at differently than we do. It's a lot more normal, and a lot more guys see it as being very macho to make big gambles.
3) I'm kind of confused. Are you talking about using social connections to meet people to pay? Social connections in general? Seems to obvious that they answer is "yes."
4) Money would do it. Or free buffets!
5) Your main hurdle here is that gamblers are often delusional and prone to exaggeration. But, I think they are pretty honest up to a point. I don't think most of them have a problem saying, "I go to a casino 3 times a week."
6) Maybe saying upfront that you are dealing with problem gambling. Just say you want to talk to people who regularly enjoy gambling or something.
This would be a few decades ago though.
Quote: RigondeauxYou should post some kind of link to lend credibility.
There is a real guy by this name who researches this subject.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/about-us/people/people-finder/dr-daniel-frings
Ip is the LSBU server. Probably legit.
Quote:
1) I've had some interesting conversations about this. One standard I proposed was, "this person would be better off if gambling never existed." But my friend, who is normally not very bright, pointed out a couple of counter examples. For example, most people might be better off (more physically fit, more mentally fit) if video games or TV were never invented. So what, are we supposed to do, live like Spartans?
Would it be relevant to what? (This applies to every time you ask that.)
2) Maybe. It's pretty murky. I know a lot of gamblers seem to see gambling as cool or glamorous. For example, they think it's cool to wear clothing that identifies them as a gambler. In some cultures, especially Asian, it's looked at differently than we do. It's a lot more normal, and a lot more guys see it as being very macho to make big gambles.
3) I'm kind of confused. Are you talking about using social connections to meet people to pay? Social connections in general? Seems to obvious that they answer is "yes."
4) Money would do it. Or free buffets!
5) Your main hurdle here is that gamblers are often delusional and prone to exaggeration. But, I think they are pretty honest up to a point. I don't think most of them have a problem saying, "I go to a casino 3 times a week."
6) Maybe saying upfront that you are dealing with problem gambling. Just say you want to talk to people who regularly enjoy gambling or something.
1) Research and more information never is a poor idea on any topic. I’d look in to people who view gambling as an entertainment source vs people whom want to gamble to make money. In our world, there are 2 people who try to make money from gambling... an AP (advantage player whom has a proven statistical advantage over the house on numerous games and promotions - this is me), and b) someone who has a non-math based theory of how to win. Most problem gamblers would fall in to the latter bucket in my opinion. Anyone whom takes the money seriously doesn’t actually gamble and takes the time to mathematically prove their edge. The 2nd group will gamble feverishly on hunches and non-math based theories and not for entertainment, thus why I think it would be a “problem” group. For example, this latter group is the type that would see 10 red numbers in roulette and bet on black because “it’s due” neverminding the fact that the law of independent trials says the odds on this spin are exactly the same as the past X spins and the future X spins.
2) I don’t think those terms are relaxant because they’re so interchanable in the gambling community that they hold very little weight. However you should include Advantage Player in that list. While my tax return might say “Professional Gambler” I take a personal responsibility to always say Advantage Player, because what I do is in fact not gambling, but a proven statistical advantage and I don’t want people to think I’m just another schmuck gambler throwing money away.
3) I think the social aspect of gambling is definitely a big part of gamblers enjoy it. Take a look around a craps table sometime. Half the fun is the comradely of the table to win and beat the house. Same at “most” blackjack tables, but I feel craps shows it the most. I’ve met so many different and interesting people over the years at different table games... from millionaires to professional athletes, their families, actors, etc, etc. Though, every person has something interesting about them if you take the time to ask. Meeting new people is definitely in the pros column for gambling.
4) In gambling? Well, the idea of winning “easy” money, because after all money won is much sweeter than money earned (though AP’s can do both). People also gamble because of the psychological dopamine dump casinos give players. Even on small wins you hear machines jingle and flash colorful lights, and these are all things that have been studied to trigger dopamine and saratonin rises in the brain, thus people think it’s fun. So “fun,” winning money, human interactions, and being treated “respectfully” (which most casinos try to do but definitely don’t always :p).
5) Make it known the results will be pooled and anamous. Reiterate that you are willing to pay for honest and unbiased feedback.
6) Probably not being compensated for their time. You’ll get feedback on gambling forums because of course we all enjoy discussing gambling related topics, but to non-bias your responses I’d presume you need results from the entirety of the general public. This will involve having people whom might not enjoy discussing gambling having to do so. Properly compensating people will incentivize them to partake and “hold up their end of the bargain” so to say.
"What do you think would discourage people from taking part?"
the beating a dead horse effect
there has been so much debate and discussion about the appropriateness of gambling that I just can't focus on it anymore
gambling undoubtedly hurts some people - as does alcohol and many other things
don't think the vast majority should have something they enjoy taken away from them because a very few destroy themselves with it
many people who speak against gambling would not like to have their Friday night beers with the guys taken away from them although many destroy themselves with alcohol
