Devil in the Details: A Critical Review of "Theoretical Loss"

Matthew A Tom; Howard J Shaffer

doi:10.1007/s10899-015-9584-4

Devil in the Details: A Critical Review of "Theoretical Loss"

J Gambl Stud. 2016 Sep;32(3):865-75. doi: 10.1007/s10899-015-9584-4.

Authors

Matthew A Tom¹, Howard J Shaffer^{2

3}

Affiliations

¹ Division on Addiction, The Cambridge Health Alliance, 101 Station Landing, 2nd Floor, Medford, MA, 02155, USA. mtom@challiance.org.
² Division on Addiction, The Cambridge Health Alliance, 101 Station Landing, 2nd Floor, Medford, MA, 02155, USA.
³ Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

PMID: 26670791
DOI: 10.1007/s10899-015-9584-4

Abstract

In their review of Internet gambling studies, Auer and Griffiths (J Gambl Stud 30(4), 879-887, 2014) question the validity of using bet size as an indicator of gambling intensity. Instead, in that review and in a response (Auer and Griffiths, J Gambl Stud 31(3), 921-931, 2015) to a previous comment (Braverman et al., J Gambl Stud 31(2), 359-366, 2015), Auer and Griffiths suggested using "theoretical loss" as a preferable measure of gambling intensity. This comment extends and advances the discussion about measures of gambling intensity. In this paper, we describe previously identified problems that Auer and Griffiths need to address to sustain theoretical loss as a viable measure of gambling intensity and add details to the discussion that demonstrate difficulties associated with the use of theoretical loss with certain gambling games.

Keywords: Bet size; Betting behavior; Online gambling; Theoretical loss.

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Behavior, Addictive / psychology*
Gambling / psychology*
Humans
Internal-External Control*
Internet / statistics & numerical data*
Motivation
Recreation
Risk-Taking*
Self Concept