Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 113–122 | Cite as

Impaired Probability Estimation and Decision-Making in Pathological Gambling Poker Players

  • Jakob LinnetEmail author
  • Mette Frøslev
  • Stine Ramsgaard
  • Line Gebauer
  • Kim Mouridsen
  • Victoria Wohlert
Original Paper


Poker has gained tremendous popularity in recent years, increasing the risk for some individuals to develop pathological gambling. Here, we investigated cognitive biases in a computerized two-player poker task against a fictive opponent, among 12 pathological gambling poker players (PGP), 10 experienced poker players (ExP), and 11 inexperienced poker players (InP). Players were compared on probability estimation and decision-making with the hypothesis that ExP would have significantly lower cognitive biases than PGP and InP, and that the groups could be differentiated based on their cognitive bias styles. The results showed that ExP had a significantly lower average error margin in probability estimation than PGP and InP, and that PGP played hands with lower winning probability than ExP. Binomial logistic regression showed perfect differentiation (100%) between ExP and PGP, and 90.5% classification accuracy between ExP and InP. Multinomial logistic regression showed an overall classification accuracy of 23 out of 33 (69.7%) between the three groups. The classification accuracy of ExP was higher than that of PGP and InP due to the similarities in probability estimation and decision-making between PGP and InP. These impairments in probability estimation and decision-making of PGP may have implications for assessment and treatment of cognitive biases in pathological gambling poker players.


Decision-making Gambling Cognitive bias Risk Poker 



This research was supported by funding from the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation grant number 2102-07-0004 and 10-088273, and from the Ministry of Interior and Health grant number 1001326.


  1. Alessi, S. M., & Petry, N. M. (2003). Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure. Behavioural Processes, 64(3), 345–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braverman, J., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). How do gamblers start gambling: identifying behavioural markers for high-risk internet gambling. European Journal of Public Health. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckp232.
  3. Cavedini, P., Riboldi, G., Keller, R., D’Annucci, A., & Bellodi, L. (2002). Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling patients. Biological Psychiatry, 51(4), 334–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Delfabbro, P. (2004). The stubborn logic of regular gamblers: Obstacles and dilemmas in cognitive gambling research. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(1), 1–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delfabbro, P. H., & Winefield, A. H. (2000). Predictors of irrational thinking in regular slot machine gamblers. Journal of Psychology, 134(2), 117–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon, M. R., Jacobs, E. A., & Sanders, S. (2006). Contextual control of delay discounting by pathological gamblers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(4), 413–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon, M. R., Marley, J., & Jacobs, E. A. (2003). Delay discounting by pathological gamblers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(4), 449–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodie, A. S. (2003). The effects of control on betting: Paradoxical betting on items of high confidence with low value. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 598–610.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodie, A. S. (2005). The role of perceived control and overconfidence in pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21(4), 481–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goudriaan, A. E., Oosterlaan, J., de Beurs, E., & van den Brink, W. (2005). Decision making in pathological gambling: a comparison between pathological gamblers, alcohol dependents, persons with Tourette syndrome, and normal controls. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 23(1), 137–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goudriaan, A. E., Oosterlaan, J., de Beurs, E., & van den Brink, W. (2006). Neurocognitive functions in pathological gambling: A comparison with alcohol dependence, Tourette syndrome and normal controls. Addiction, 101(4), 534–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant, S., Contoreggi, C., & London, E. D. (2000). Drug abusers show impaired performance in a laboratory test of decision making. Neuropsychologia, 38(8), 1180–1187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ladoucer, R., Tourigny, M., & Mayrand, M. (1986). Familiarity, group exposure, and risk-taking behavior in gambling. Journal of Psychology, 120(1), 45–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladouceur, R. (2004). Gambling: The hidden addiction. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(8), 501–503.Google Scholar
  15. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., Lachance, S., Doucet, C., & Leblond, J. (2003). Group therapy for pathological gamblers: A cognitive approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(5), 587–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., Lachance, S., Doucet, C., Leblond, J., et al. (2001). Cognitive treatment of pathological gambling. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189(11), 774–780.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Letarte, H., Giroux, I., & Jacques, C. (1998). Cognitive treatment of pathological gamblers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(12), 1111–1119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lakey, C. E., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2006). Frequent card playing and pathological gambling: The utility of the georgia gambling task and iowa gambling task for predicting pathology. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(3), 285–297.Google Scholar
  19. Lakey, C. E., Goodie, A. S., Lance, C. E., Stinchfield, R., & Winters, K. C. (2007). Examining DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling: Psychometric properties and evidence from cognitive biases. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(4):479–498.Google Scholar
  20. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(9), 1184–1188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lesieur, H., & Blume, S. B. (1993). Revising the South Oaks Gambling Screen in different settings. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Linnet, J., Gebauer, L., Shaffer, H. J., Mouridsen, K., & Møller, A. (2010a). Experienced poker players differ in estimation bias and decision bias from inexperienced poker players. Journal of Gambling Issues, 10, 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Linnet, J., Møller, A., Peterson, E. A., Gjedde, A., & Doudet, D. (2010b). Inverse association between dopaminergic neurotransmission and Iowa Gambling Task performance in pathological gamblers and healthy controls. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.Google Scholar
  24. Linnet, J., Rojskjaer, S., Nygaard, J., & Maher, B. A. (2006). Episodic chasing in pathological gamblers using the Iowa gambling task. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 43–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petry, N. M. (2001). Substance abuse, pathological gambling, and impulsiveness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63(1), 29–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Petry, N. M., & Casarella, T. (1999). Excessive discounting of delayed rewards in substance abusers with gambling problems. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 56(1), 25–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. (2002). Pathological gambling. A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(7), 1009–1061.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Toneatto, T., Blitz-Miller, T., Calderwood, K., Dragonetti, R., & Tsanos, A. (1997). Cognitive distortions in heavy gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(3), 253–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakob Linnet
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mette Frøslev
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stine Ramsgaard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Line Gebauer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kim Mouridsen
    • 1
  • Victoria Wohlert
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center of Functionally Integrative NeuroscienceAarhus University Hospital, Aarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Pathophysiology and Experimental Tomography CenterAarhus University Hospital, Aarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations