Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Losing More by Losing It: Poker Experience, Sensitivity to Losses and Tilting Severity

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Gambling Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In poker, detrimental decision-making as a result of losing control due to negative emotions is known as tilting. Previous evidence suggests that poker experience is related to better emotion regulation in dealing with poker losses, and possibly to reduced severity of tilting in the game. A correlational on-line study (N = 417) was conducted to operationalize the tilting phenomenon by defining certain experiential characteristics that conceivably protect players from tilting or predispose them to it. These characteristics, as well as a measurement of poker experience, were then used in predicting the severity of tilting. It was hypothesized that (1) players with more poker experience are more likely to perceive having tilted less severely, as a result of accumulating poker experience; (2) players with more poker experience have lower severity of tilting; (3) players with more poker experience report lower emotional sensitivity to losses; and (4) players with a higher emotional sensitivity to losses have higher severity of tilting. Hypotheses 1 and 4 were supported, hypothesis 3 was weakly supported, but contrary to hypothesis 2, poker experience was associated with higher tilting severity. It is argued that these results are sensible if experienced players are less likely to tilt in relative terms, per single hand, but more likely to tilt in the long run.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For information concerning the rules of poker, including an overlook at the general mechanisms of winning and losing in poker, see, e.g., Sklansky and Miller 2006.

  2. A bad beat refers to losing in a situation where losing is perceived to be highly unlikely.

  3. Alternatively, it is possible that the less frequently negative emotions are experienced, the more likely players are to continue playing.

  4. Here, a poker hand refers to a single round of game play; the period begins when cards are dealt and ends with the showdown (revealing of players' cards and deciding the winner of said hand).

  5. For instance, an item in the South Oaks Gambling Screen aimed at assessing chasing behavior “When you gamble, how often do you go back another day to win back money you have lost?” is not valid in assessing, for example, the assumed chasing behavior of a professional poker player: it is a poker professional's job to return to play the next day.

  6. Based on the underlying theory, emotional sensitivity to losses (as measured by SL) was presumed to be the most consequential measured characteristic in predicting the severity of tilting (as measured by ST), and it was further assumed that effects of both poker experience (as measured by PES) and perceived effects of experience on tilting (as measured by PEET) would be mediated by SL. The prerequisites of diagnosing mediation were met by including SL as a mediator into the model.

  7. This might relate to (1) higher overall amount of hands played, (2) higher average stakes played, resulting in, on average, higher occasional monetary losses (despite the fact experienced players win, in the long run, more money than inexperienced players), and (3) higher overall amount of times betting with statistically strong hands—experienced players bet more frequently than inexperienced players with strong hands and therefore encounter potential bad beats more often than the latter.

  8. For instance, it might be conceivable that during playing the Iowa Gambling Task (Bechara et al. 1994), which is a widely recognized decision-making task involving constant risk-taking, players' scores on the Sensitivity to Losses-scale would be positively associated with risk-seeking behavior.

References

  • Aiken, L., & West, G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelo, T. (2007). Elements of poker. Self-published.

  • Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1–3), 7–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerg, O. (2010). Problem gambling in poker: Money, rationality and control in a skill-based social game. International Gambling Studies, 10(3), 239–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerg, O. (2011). Poker. The parody of capitalism. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. C., & Mitchell, L. A. (2010). An observational investigation of poker style and of five-factor personality model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(2), 229–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., Rodda, S., & Phillips, J. G. (2004). Differences between problem and nonproblem gamblers in subjective arousal and affective valence amongst electronic gaming machine players. Addictive Behaviors, 29(9), 1863–1867.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, B. R. (1989). Going on tilt: Frequent poker players and control. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedonno, M. A., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). Poker is a skill. Gaming Law Review, 12(1), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, M., & O’Connor, J. (2006). Gambling as an addictive behavior. Impaired control, harm minimisation, treatment and prevention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M., Parke, J., Wood, R., & Rigbye, J. (2010). Online poker gambling in university students: Further findings from an online survey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8(1), 82–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayano, D. M. (1982). Poker faces: The life and work of professional card players. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopley, A. A. B., Dempsey, K., & Nicki, R. (2011). Texas Hold’em online poker: A further examination. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi:10.1007/s11469-011-9353-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopley, A. A. B., & Nicki, R. M. (2010). Predictive factors of excessive online poker playing. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4), 379–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesieur, H. (1984). The chase: Career of the compulsive gambler. Massachusetts: Schenkman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Feldman Barrett, L. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of emotions (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnet, J., Frøslev, M., Ramsgaard, S., Gebauer, L., Mouridsen, K., & Wohlert, V. (2011). Impaired probability estimation and decision-making in pathological gambling poker players. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-011-9244-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnet, J., Gebauer, L., Shaffer, H., Mouridsen, K., & Møller, A. (2010). Experienced poker players differ from inexperienced poker players in estimation bias and decision bias. Journal of Gambling Issues, 24, 86–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G., von Meduna, M., Brosowski, T., & Hayer, T. (2012). Is poker a game of skill or chance? A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9327-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitrovic, D. V., & Brown, J. (2009). Poker mania and problem gambling: A study of distorted cognitions, motivations and alexithymia. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(4), 489–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moodie, C., & Finnigan, F. (2005). A comparison of the autonomic arousal of frequent, infrequent and non-gamblers while playing fruit machines. Addiction, 100(1), 51–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, S. M., Thomas, A. C., Kyrios, M., & Bates, G. (2011). The self-regulation of gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-011-9265-x.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palomäki, J., & Laakasuo, M. Qualitative assessment of feelings associated with significant losses in poker. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Palomäki, J., Laakasuo, M., & Salmela, M. (2012). “Don’t worry, it’s just poker!”-Experience, self-rumination and self-reflection as determinants of decision-making in on-line poker. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9311-3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Radburn, B., & Horsley, R. (2011). Gamblers, grinders, and mavericks: The use of membership categorisation to manage identity by professional poker players. Journal of Gambling Issues. doi:10.4309/jgi.2011.26.4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, M. (2010). Randy “nanonoko” Lew and his rise to multi-table poker fame. Resource document. OnlinePoker.net. http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-news/poker-pros-news/randy-nanonoko-lew-rise-multitable-poker-fame/7327. Accessed September 4, 2012.

  • Rosenthal, R. J. (1995). The phenomenology of “Bad Beats”: Some clinical observations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11(4), 367–372.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siler, K. (2010). Social and psychological challenges of poker. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(3), 401–420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sklansky, D., & Miller, E. (2006). No-limit Hold’em: Theory and practice. Henderson, NV: Two Plus Two Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teed, M., Finlay, K. A., Marmurek, H. H. C., Colwell, S. R., & Newby-Clark, I. R. (2011). Sympathetic magic and gambling: Adherence to the law of contagions varies with gambling severity. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-011-9280-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toneatto, T. (1999). Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. Substance Use and Misuse, 34(11), 1593–1604.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Loewenstein, G. (Eds.). (2007). Do emotions hurt or help decision-making? A hedgefoxian perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. D., Grisham, J. R., Erskine, A., & Cassedy, E. (2011). Deficits in emotion regulation associated with pathological gambling. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.2011.02022.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K., Tang, H., Sun, Y., Huang, G., Rao, L., Liang, Z., et al. (2011). Belief in luck or in skill: Which locks people into gambling? Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-011-9263-z.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies, The Kone Foundation, and The Academy of Finland for their financial support in this project. We also wish to thank the following Finnish poker communities for their interest in our research: www.pokerisivut.com, www.pokeritieto.com and www.pokerista.net. Lastly, we are grateful to Apophenia for providing us with ideas and inspiration.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Science, Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Jussi Palomäki & Michael Laakasuo

  2. Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 4, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Mikko Salmela

  3. Gustav Pauligin katu 8 B 43, 00990, Helsinki, Finland

    Jussi Palomäki

Authors
  1. Jussi Palomäki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Laakasuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mikko Salmela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jussi Palomäki.

Additional information

Participation in this internet-based correlative study was voluntary, and the anonymity of all respondents was guaranteed. Information provided by respondents will be used only for scientific purposes.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Reproduction of the Measures Used

Severity of Tilting (ST)-Scale

This scale was used as the dependent variable in the study. Items are presented as translated from Finnish to English. Anchoring of the items is illustrated below. Items 2 and 3, depicted by (-) after the item, were reverse coded. Prior to answering, respondents were provided the following information concerning tilting:

“Next, you will be asked questions concerning tilt and tilting. Here, tilting is defined as follows:

‘A strong negative emotional state elicited by elements of the poker game (e.g., “bad beats” or a prolonged “losing-streak”) that is characterized by losing control, and due to which the quality of decision-making in poker has decreased.’

The following questions concern the time period during which you last played poker actively. In other words, if the last time you played poker actively was 1 year ago, the questions concern that time, and not the current moment.”

Item 1

Code

On estimate, how many times have you tilted within your last 6 months of active poker playing?

1

0

2

1–2

3

3–4

4

5–6

5

7–8

6

8–9

7

More than 10

Item 2 (-)

Code

If you have tilted (within your last 6 months of active poker playing), on estimate how strong was the tilting in your experience?

1

A very strong negative experience

2–6

–

7

Only a mildly negative experience

8

I have not tilted

  1. Note “Strong” is a direct translation. The word “intensive” is semantically similar, and could have been used as well

Item 3 (-)

Code

When I have tilted (within my last active 6 months of playing), I have managed to quit playing before the losses have become too big

1

Completely disagree

2–6

–

7

Completely agree

8

I have not tilted

Item 4

Code

Tilting has been a problem for me (within my last active 6 months of playing)

1

Completely disagree

2–6

–

7

Completely agree

Perceived Effect of Experience on Tilting (PEET)-Scale

Items are presented as translated from Finnish to English. All items were identically anchored (from 1 = “Completely disagree” to 7 = “Completely agree”) There were no reverse coded items. Prior to answering, respondents were given a definition of tilting (see Severity of Tilting -scale, above).

  1. 1.

    The more poker playing experience I have accumulated, the less frequently I have tilted.

  2. 2.

    The more poker playing experience I have accumulated, the shorter lasting my periods of tilting have been.

  3. 3.

    The more poker playing experience I have accumulated, the less “intensive” my periods of tilting have been.

  4. 4.

    The more poker playing experience I have accumulated, the less I have felt tilting is a problem for me.

Sensitivity to Losses (SL)-Scale

Items are presented as translated from Finnish to English. All the items were identically anchored (from 1 = “Completely disagree” to 7 = “Completely agree”). Items 5 and 6, depicted by (-) after the item, were reverse coded. Prior to answering, respondents were told the items regarded the game of poker.

  1. 1.

    I feel losing is unfair.

  2. 2.

    When I lose, I feel anger.

  3. 3.

    When I lose, I feel hate.

  4. 4.

    When I lose, it is difficult to remember the details of the incident later on.

  5. 5.

    Losing is part of the game. (-)

  6. 6.

    There is nothing fair or unfair about losing. (-)

  7. 7.

    If I make a good decision in the game, I feel that I am supposed to win.

  8. 8.

    I get easily irritated by consecutive losses.

  9. 9.

    Losing with a skillfully played strong hand feels unfair.

  10. 10.

    Losing to aggressive opponents is like poison to my concentration.

  11. 11.

    It is hard for me to accept losing to players who are less skilled than myself, but get the winning hand by good luck.

Appendix 2: Further Explanation for the Moderated Mediation Model Presented in the Main Text

The two figures presented in this appendix illustrate an alternative way of depicting the information provided in Table 1 of the main text. The simple slopes presented in Figs. 3 and 4 below illustrate the effect of the mediator (Sensitivity to Losses) on poker playing experience (as measured by PES) when predicting tilting severity. Figure 1 depicts the 1st step regression model presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1. Figure 4 depicts the 2nd step regression model presented in Figs. 2a, b and Table 1 of the main text. As can be seen in Fig. 3, the slope for the experienced poker players (PES +1SD) decreases sharply when the self-perceived effects of experience on tilting (as measured by PEET) increase. This effect is not observed for inexperienced players (PES −1SD), and the slope thereof is, in essence, zero.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Association between PEET (Perceived Effect of Experience on Tilting) and Severity of Tilting in individuals with high versus low power experience (as measured by PES). Simple slopes are one standard deviation above and below the mean. See Table 1 for full statistics

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Association between PEET (Perceived Effect of Experience on Tilting) and Severity of Tilting in individuals with high versus low power experience (as measured by PES), corrected for the mediation effect of Sensitivity to Losses. Simple slopes are one standard deviation above and below the mean. See Table 1 for full statistics

Full size image

Below, the model has been corrected for the mediation effect of Sensitivity to Losses. As can be seen, the interaction effect is weaker (the slope of PES +1SD is not as steep as in Fig. 3) and the absolute numeric values thereof (the effect on the dependent variable) are reduced. In essence, the differences between Figs. 3 and 4 correspond to and illustrate the mediation effects of Sensitivity to Losses. The change in the steepness of the PES +1SD slope also indicates that when the model is corrected for Sensitivity to Losses, the effects of PEET buffering against tilting severity are diluted (see also “Discussion” of the main text).

The corresponding structural model for Fig. 4 is presented below, in Fig. 5, at the level of the mean. As can be seen, the numbers correspond to the numbers of the 2nd step model presented in Table 1 of the main text.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Second step model [moderated mediation model presented at the level of the mean PES scores. Associations between PES (Poker Experience Scale), PEET (Perceived Effect of Experience on Tilting), SL (Sensitivity to Losses) and ST (Severity of Tilting; Dependent Variable), and the Interaction effects (PES × PEET) presented graphically. Unstandardized B-values are shown (***p < .001; **p < .01; † p < .1). All predictors are centered

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Palomäki, J., Laakasuo, M. & Salmela, M. Losing More by Losing It: Poker Experience, Sensitivity to Losses and Tilting Severity. J Gambl Stud 30, 187–200 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9339-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9339-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation