a

n the 20 years that I leave been studying gambling,

the question that I am most asked is 'Why do
people
gamble?' and variations on it, such as 'Why do
people gamble when most people consi’stently lose?' All
surveys of gambling have shown that there are a
broad range
motivational factors that are central to gambling, and that
attitudes towards gambling are positively related to availability
and cultural acceptabi/ ty{Griffiths, 2006).
However, this perspective fails to take into account many
key findings and observations in gambling research.
Surveys have also shown that not everyone gambles and
some people gamble more than others (e.g., professional
gamblers, problem gamblers). Research has consistently
shown that people often gamble for reasons other than
broad social ‹nd economic reasons.
These other motivations may vary according to personal
characteristics of the gambler and the type of gambling
activity Additionally, broad socfal and economic theories fail
to explain why certain gambling activities are more popular
or ’addictive‘ than others (Griffiths, 2006)

Variations in gambling preferertCes are thought to result front

both differences \n accessibility and motivation. Older
people tend to choose activities that minimise the need (or
complex decision-making or concentraiion (e.g., bingo, slot
maclJinesT. whereas gentler differences have been
attributed to a number of factors, inch ding variations in sex-
role socialisation, cultural differences and theories of
motivation (Grirr‹th . ?006).
Stcreotypically, women tend to piefer chanct°-based
games and men lend lo prefer skill based games. Even sorr
e gar+ies that are predo‹ninanlIy chance-basccl, mom alternpt
to
• • ‹ • . '. .. ' /
impose some level of skill. for instance, puker which
people regard aS Skill-lDased has a massive amount of
72 n
luck inv0lved.
Similarly, men often, in their own mingle, change
playing a slot machine from a chance-basecl event into a
more skill- based activny via cognitive processes such as
the illusion of control. The other facior to consicler is
that (in general) women don't like it when other people see
them losing. On a slot machine, no-one sees the player is
losing so it's very often a very guilt free, private
experience. Men, on the other hand, even when they lose
big, there's a machismo attached to it that says: ”Yes,
I've lost Elf 0 but I can afford it.”
Variations in motivation are also frequently observed
among people who participate in the same gambling
activity. For example, slot machine players may gamble to
win money, fo enjoyment and excitement, to socialise
and to escape negative feelings (Griffiths, 2002). Some
people gamble for one reason only, whereas others
gamble for a variety of reasons. A further complexity is
that people's motivations for gambling have a strong
temporal dimension: that is, they do not remain stable
over time.
As people progress from social to regular and finally
to excessive gambling, there are often significant
changes in their reasons for gambling. Whereas a person
might have initially gambled to obtain enjoyment,
excitement and socialisation, the progression to problem
gambling is almost always accompanied by an increased
preoccupation with winning money and chasing losses
(Griffiths, 2006).
Gambling is clearly a multifaceted rather than
unitary phenomenon, Consequently, many factors may
come into play in various ways and at different levels of
analysis (e.g., biological, social or psychological).
Theories may be complementary rather than mutually
exclusive, which
suggest'. tt ‹ i Iijiiitati‹›ns of
ii›‹livirIti›il theoric miy,hf h‹' overcame
ilJrough rhc ‹:uinbinafiorJ nf ideas from
cIiTferc•t\t perspex.tives. This has often
been discusserl br fore In tel rHs of
recommendations for are 'eclectic'
approach to gambling or a distinction
between proximal and dislal irlflucnccs
upon gambling. However, for the most
part, such discussions have been
dcscriptive rather than analytical,
and so far, few aitempts have been
made to explain why an adherence to
singular perspectives is untenable (Griffiths & Larkin,
2004:

Gamb\ing is one ot those activities

where people effectively can get
something for nothing, which is why
some people will take risks. The
attraction of a lottery for example is
that, for a very small stake, the punter
can have a life-changing experience
(and things are further complicated by
the fact that most lottery players don’t
see the activity as gambling) (Griffiths &
Wood, 2001). People who enjoy playing
roulette or betting on a football match
enjoy the betting or gaming
experience itself. In short, each
gambling activ’ity has its own unique
psychology (although there Are
undoubted overlaps),
Most economists claim that
gamblers are primarily driven by the
profit motive, However, the
psychological evidence is
overwhelming that other desires affect
gambling actions. Put simply, for most
gamblers, our actions contrad ct ihe
desire to maximise profits. Whilst I am
no Freudian, there appear to be a whole
range of unconscious factors at play in
gambling situations (Griffiths &
Delfabbro, 2001).
For instance, if players make a
successful bluff during a card game, it's
human nature to want to let people to
know how smarr they are. The golden
rule in poker is never to give anything
away, but the human psyche works in
such a way
that w‹’ usually w•IiJt tt› s)iuw ‹›ff cfi« ill a while.
OiJr p›sycI›‹›luyi :tl make p abo muans that we let pri4o I new g’*•*!• wi” fI› o ‹il sun e kint4 ol {arc set plc .
get in lllc way of \1 \nim\s\\\g losses. ’I hrre aru always Winning yarnhlers scf thumseIvcsw›n/loss goals hefu/e
games that sho\›ld have heen avoided hut players end up they enter a buttm¿shut› or cas no. D ly footisl›
staying • them long after they knew it was a mistake. gambler play hand rkr hand or bet upon bet without
Nune of us like to lose to who we think arc weaker direction. Planning ai›d goals are the catalyst Io life
players, or admit that the game was too hard. Flow many success and ga‹vbling is no different.
times docs a player continue playing because thCy want 2. I never let the excitement of a gambling environmcnf
to try and get the bciter of a great player or show off detract from the pre-set plan I entered with. For
because there is someone they are trying to impress* instance, when I am in a casino, I remember that
Althor gh it's a cliché, pride beford a fall is the alcohol, the music, and the attractive women are
commonplace. These short °rm psychological satisfactions there
will almost always have a negative impact on long-term for a ‹easort. They are tyre to make me spend more
profits. money. I only do what I planned to do and I don't
Because there arc many non-financial types of rewards get side tracked.
from many different sources while gambling (Griffiths, I a\ways remember that fhe excitement of gambling
1999), some people view losses as the price of entry. To itself can lead to irrational thought processes.
these players (and I include myself as one of them), Psychological research has consistently shown that
winning may be a bonus. However, most of us don‘t like when gamblers are in the thick of their gambling
Ios›ng —and we especially don't like persistent losing, ’action', they tend to be more irrational in how they
regardless of wheiher ihere are other types of think. Irrationality leads to poor decision-making and
reinforcement. In the cold light of day. we are all rat onal pre set plans often go out of the window. Just like
human beings. In the height of action, ration&ty often alcohol, gambling can make the player do things that
goes ou\ the window. I've done it myself at they would never have done rn lhe co\d ight of day.
the roulette table and standing in front of a slot 4. I am never tempted to use in-house cash machines
machine. While gambling I have felt omnipotent. It is only and ATMs. Although they provide an ultra-convenient
after I walk away pennitess that the non-financial rewards way to get more cash, they are there — in general -
are short-term and not worth it ‹Griffi(hs. 1990). for one purpose. To entice those who are gambling
nor to stop or go home when they have run out of
money that they walked in with. By waIl‹ing out of
Understanding our own psychological motives is cIe9r1y the casino to get mgre money, there is more of a
important while gambling. Most players know the strategies chance that | \ryiII have time to reflect dur‹ng this
they should be adopting but fail to apply them in real 'cooling off' period and not return.
gambling situations. Players do not lack the information. It The psychology of casino management is to keep
is far more profitable to learn why we don't app\y the punters in there as long as possible. When it comes to
lessons we have already learned, then ensure that we in house cash machines, I‘m irfvaiab\y paying over the
apply them. Until we understand and control our own odds to get the money out in the first place. I always
m0tives — including the unconscious ones — we cannot find it sad to see the desperation on some gambles’s
possibly play to our best ability. faces as ihey are waiting in line to get some money
Despite studying problem gambling, I am most def niiely out.
not ante-gambling, I'm pro-responsible gambling. To be anti I always make sure that I havg the proper bankroll for
gambling would be hypocritical as I'm an occasional the strategy and denominaiions that I intend to gamble
gambler myself and in the small minority of players who with. The general rule that seems io do the rounds on
regJarly go to the casino. I enjoy playing roulette. I used most reputable websites and adv ce books is to take at
to call it 'research' but now play for pleasure. least three times 40a credits of the highest
I personally see gambling as buying entertainment. denomination yoo are going to gamble v\ ith. There are
obviously variations to this rule depending on the
strategy you employ, but by and large this is the
ru)e.
When I go to the casinos in my home town, I'll have a cordon 6. pfefer to describe them as the psychology of
bleu meal, a drink and spend my twenty or lhirty pounds minimising losses! In some situations, these is a
that I have put aside to play. When I go in at 6pm and very lime Ifne between psy hclogy and common
leave at 11.30pm, I know that the amount of money I sense. In hurt:
have spent equates to a good value leisure experience. It
‹s the same as gofng to a football match or a rock concert.
When individuals start gambling to win money, and that is
their only objective, that is when problems can starl. that’s
when a proportion of vulnerable people can get into
difficulty.

As an academic who studies the psychology of

gambling, I expecl to lose in the long run. However, that is
not to say that T don't have A set of rules that I apply in
gambling sit«ations (see Griffiths, 2005b). Some might say
my rtilcs are about the psycho\ogy of winning bt t I wo»ld
I only Stay at the same belting shop, gaming table or slot machine a general rule, garnhling promotions are Lhe highest
for a pre-set amount of lime. I always move onlo another area oi money earners foi the gafTibling establishment's
establishment if I feel physically or psychologically uncomfortable. marketing department.
This gives me a 'cooling off period. 1( possible tand I an the first to admit T)›ey are designed to get we in the gaming
it's rat always), I try to spread my gambling around. In most big establishment o‹ to ge\ me gan hllng on something
towns and cities there are numerous gambling new. I avoid gambling with offers that seem tno
establishments. \n my research experience, those gamblers who good to be trtfr. They usually are!
sit at the same tables or machines for hours and hours are I gamble at the establtslJnJent nf n y choosing and
often miserable and unsatisfied gamblers. They are playing with nol
money rather than for it. Where possible, I ignore promotions. As
 where someone else advises me to gamble. This is all able to deal will fi’rislrafion ap[›ropriately.
part of sticking to n y pru-set pIai and riot letting others Delerinining objective attributions of oritcoi»es involves
influence my ga›vbti› behaviour.
9. I have learned tu think for myself. General advice is
74
one thiny. Winners learn to sort things out for
themselves and not rely on others. They are
comfor(able with how tiney approach their gambling. I
also disregard rumours. Gambling can often invoke
cerfan urban myths, such as 'fi›ur first bet after opening
aa InternetgambIi’ng account is atw»ys a winning
one”. " 8anking on such speculation while
gambling is a recipe for disaster. Only faC[uaI
information iS used to inform my decision-
making.
10. Finally, I do my own ’research'. As with any other
product that irwolves the exchange of money, a
gambler needs to do research to establish the best
deals around. This is especially useful on Internet
gambling sites but can be applied to offline
gambling too.

One of the most psychologically interesting questions

concerning gambling is *W/ty do so many people play so
badly?’It's clear ihat mosf players know better, but they
appear to make the same mistakes repeatedly. Take poker
as an example. G‹ven the hundreds of thousands of
poker strategy books that are sold every yeaf, we can only
reach the conclusion that just a smalt percentage of poker
players app\y the skills they have read about.
My hunch is that most people understand what
they have read but when il comes io playing a competitive
hand it's simply more 'fun' to play badly than to play well.
I'm nPt saytng(osing is more fun than wimng(because qu
te clearly it isn't), bul the pursuit of profit maximisation
forces players to do things they don’t like doing. On a
psychological leve), maximising profit makes extreme
demands. Therefore, only a fe'^, extraordinarily disciplined
people play their best game most of the time — and
nobody always plays it.
At a fundamental level, what separates good
iprotessional) gamblers and novice or problem gamblers is
ihe factor of self-control. The general rule of thumb fpr
players rs tO avoid becoming emotionally involved in
the game. Inducing emotional (rather than logjcal) reactions
from gamblers is what makes the gambling industry so
profitable. By renaaming unemotional, players can protect
themselves from recklessly chasing losses and avoid going
on 'tilt'. Online gamblers are particularly at risk from
engaging in chasing losses for the simple reason that they
have 24-hour access from and are constantly subjected
to temptation.
Furthermore, they often (ack a 'social safety net' \o
give objective appraisals.
There are ways to avoid becoming emptionaTTy engaged.
These include reflective 'time outs' and having an
obiective attribution of outcomes. Reflective time-ours
equates io play\ng slowly, maktng gambling decisions with
accrued knowledge (i.e., knowledge of probabilily and of
opponents). It is advisable after a ’bad beat' for players to
be disciplined enough to sit out one or two hands to
regain composure before playing again. Extending ihe
concept further it is probably wise after a pvt‹cularly
ineffectual se s‹on to skis\atn play for an elongated time-of
l. Reckless and ur intelligent
pl3y from knowledgeable p)aycrs emerges from ‹J0t being
the player f\avtrjg an external loci is of control when o/ those in the public eye.
assessing the carc/s they I ave, ar\d an Internal Iucu.s P1aying carcts wilh someone yoi i'vc oi›/y mei a few
uf co›\trol fegafding wha\ th p\xyer c\oes wtth \lw timc•s
cards xvailab\e to them. The n antrn of poker players
is that ’You can only play the I›andyoii were dealf'. All players
will experience streaks of desirable and poor hands,
and it is how the player responds to these streaks thai
will determine their success. It is very easy for players to
become frustrated while irt a negative streak. It is also
easy in a positive streak to become narcissi3lic and
complacent. \t is the knovVledgeable player that
understands probability and who realises that over a
continuous playing period that streaks (both positive and
negative) ale inevitable and transient.

I have to admit that I am not a good poker player.

However, if I was, I would certainly try to use the
psychology of non- verbal communication to my
advantage. Back in 2D03, Peter Collett published a book on
tf e psychology of 'tells' (Collett, 2003). Professor Cable\t
delicately \ifted the core tops of his book from the non-
verbal world of poker players. A ’tell' is bas ca)1y an
act’ionthat reveals what a person Is thinking and are often
so tiny that they may not even be noticed. Tn poker, many
players try to infer what kind of hand a person has by
looking at the way the card player holds theif cards, gazes
at the Chips or scratches their face.
Tells can be both conscious and unconscious.
Colle\t
spent time studying politicians and has highlighted the
'tells of power’ such as the way George W. Bush bites the
inside of his cheek when he is highly nervous or
anxious, and Bill Clinton's tendency to bire his lower
lip as a way of demonstrating his st\Seri\y. Most of
these behaviours are intended to be hidden, but are
what we psycholog sis call ’emotional leakage*. Many
psychologists have carried out research into non-verbal
communication. However, as soon as a non-verbal ’rule
of thumb’ is well known by the general public, the
knowledge can be Used to their advantage.
When it comes to playing poker (or any card game
of skill for thst matter), an already skiltu\ player witl have
the upper hand If they can learn to read the non verbal
cues ol the other players. One of the pmblems is that
most 'lells' differ from person to person. The trick !s Lo
try and memorise
what the person did At a particular point such as the way
they act when they rA\se the amount of money betng
staked, oi the behaviour they display just before rhey are
about to fold.
Unconscious tells are linked Io negative emoiions
such as anxiety. /f a player has been dealt a bad
hand, naive players are likely to show their
psychological discomfort through nervous reactions
such as unconscious deg a finger tapping. Serious poker
players will already know all about tells and will usually
have learned to develop their own type of 'poker face'
to bluff opponents.
This is all part of the psychological battle in playing
most
card gases of skill. There are atso whxt have been
described as 'iransition tells' where people display
common but repetitive behavi0ural patterns in times of
uncerl4inty and/or where people cross psychological
boundaries. Colleir (2003) provides the examples of
politicians such as Gordon Brown who plays with his
shot cuffs and strokes his hatr. Obvously, with so much
television footage, psychologists have a much easier
lime in ti yil\g ie analyse lhe i nconst:ior s everyJay te)\s
where II1ere is no o ›gort‹Jni{y lo rr}3lay tllt uvr'ril CIV 'I
8FIñ over is clearly m ch I\a‹der! But some gond purer /fy | r i •- ’ ^ r• ' •’“- ”j :' I ’› : | ” 1 • I I ' 4 I .*- ' I " ’i r I I ' f' •' 1 ,” ! ’
t›Iayers do appear tn have the alJility to read other players
and it is this ability that can separate lhc very yood poker
player from the great.
Players can a)so learn to use false tells as a way of
bluffing iheir opponent. The most common that Collett
(2003) has described is the ‘power tell' which is often used
by political leaders in some of their actions (suCh as the
way they walk). Just like at the way George W. Bush
vyalks next time you see him on teIevis on. His a m
swing and Swagge His shoulders are very exaggerated.
He is trying to show the public that he is the leader of the
Western won(d and what a powerful position he is in.
In a game of cards, p0ker players will also try to
assert their dominance by using more subtle 'power
tells' by smoking a cigar in a particular way or
showing off when shuffling lhe cards before dealing. The
whole point of power tells ‹s to look sincere and dominant
and they can be used in a wide variety of contexts
including poker. In essence, power tells are about ’one-
upmanship' and this is the bedrock of most skid\-baseci
card games.
Even the language of power tells is lifted from the
gambling world. In everyday human behaviour, Collett
describes power tells as behavioural actions which ”raise
the stakes" and a)Iow people to metaphorically or
symbolically "put iheir Cards on the ra6/e”. While power
tells are usually conscious and deliberate, most non-
verbal human behaviour is locally unconsc ous and the
vast majority of people can‘t help but show their inner
thinking through actions such as folding their arms.
The whole area of non-verbal communication is a
fascinating area of psychol0gica\ study. Human behaviour \s
complex And there are too many individual differences to
predict what any given person will do in a given
situation (such as playing poker). However, by learning
la undersfand
\ hat a)I these unconscious movements mean, we can start
to gain access to lh0 window of the gambler’s mind.

When I started researching in gambling in October

1987, I ie‹Tiember being asked by my supervisors how I
was going to do research in the area. I also remember
one of my
super visors singly sayng to rue “the beast way you could
study the problem is to become o gambler you‹selL!"To
some extent I took this throwaway comment on board
and did start gambling during my PhD (even lhough at the
time I called it ’research‘).
Rather (han become a compulsive gambler I became a
compulsive "gambler watcher’! I find ii hard to go inta a
pub, wail in a chip shop queue, or walk pasl amusement
arcades without watching the players(s) al the slot
machines.
Gambling has become an important part of my life
(both personal and professional). My favo«rite strategy in
gambling irrvu\ves sports betting. When it comes to gan1b\
ng on sports matches I lry to employ strategies that leave
me feeling good whatever the outcome. 7hat is why [from
1psychological perspective› I tend to bet aga test my own
team. My logic has always been that I win either way. If
my team wins I mm oi a high. If my team loses I at lensl
have the winnings to so(ten the blow of my team losing.
Before the 2003 Rughy World Cup final I pi ir f50 on
Australia to beat England. Best ñS0 I ever lusr!
Griffiths, M.G. (ir9u; Ii ie danger› of social psy‹:liolopy research. 8f.s
.soci.at

G ilfi\frs, M U. (J999). Ti›e p5ycl iolotty of the near nyxv{revisited}. /fnz

sA
/ourna/ a/Psychology, 90, 441 44a.
Griffilljs. M D. 2£O2). Gam6/qg a‹rc/ blaming Add tions In Adolesceii.
e.
Leicester: british Psychological Society/Blackwells.
Griffiths, Nt D. (2005a). A "compose ill“ model of addicton within a
biopsychosocial framework. Journato/.5ubstnnce Mu°, 10. 19\ -1S7.
Griffiths, M.D. (2003b). The psychology of gambling: Who wants to bu a
winner? Inside' Ec/gc.’ TLie ¿an›bIinfi, Majfiaz›ne, September (Iss\›‹' 18), y. 71
Griffiths, M D, {2006), An overviwv of pathological gambling. In 1. PlarJte
(Ed.), /vierIvl Oisorders of )ie her lVtille nniuci. V’ol. 1.- Beh oral Issues .
pp.
73-98. New York: Greenwood.
GriffitT s, M-D. A Delfabbro, P (2001), The biopsychosocial approach
ro gambling. Contextual faclor 5 in research and clinical interventions. 7oiirrta/
of Camblinglss'ues, 5, 1-33. Located a\!

Giiffilhs, M.D. & Larkin, M. ‹2004). Conceptualising addiclion: the case for a
'complex systems* account. Addiction ftesearc/t and 7hcor/, 12, 99 102.
Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. t2001). The psychology ef f0ttery
gambling.