Are Poker Players Aware of the Change in Their Poker Habits? Point of View of the Players and the PGSI

  • Magali DufourEmail author
  • Adèle Morvannou
  • Natacha Brunelle
  • Élise Roy
Original Article


Poker playing is a concern because of the large amounts of money spent and the high prevalence of gambling problems. Few studies have taken an interest in poker players’ (PPs’) perspectives. The goal of this qualitative study was to describe PPs’ perceptions of the change in their poker playing and to compare their perception to the variation in the score of a screening tool. A convenience sample of 25 PPs participated in a qualitative interview and completed the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) 2 years in a row. Of these 25 PPs, 19 perceived a decrease in their poker habits, three perceived an increase, and the other three, no change. The perception of 60% of the PPs was inconsistent with the PGSI; most of those who perceived a decrease in fact had an increase. This study highlights how difficult it is for gamblers to be aware of the changes in their gambling and the importance to develop tools for responsible gambling. These tools would allow gamblers to become aware of their current gambling habits and their evolution.


Poker Perception Problem gambling Risk Qualitative study 



The authors would like to thank the all participants that collaborated in this study and all the members of the research team.

Funding Information

This research was supported by the founding agency Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture under grant <2012-JU-164313>.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.


  1. Abbott, M. W., & Clarke, D. (2007). Prospective problem gambling research: contribution and potential. International Gambling Studies, 7(1), 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. (2017). Self-reported losses versus actual losses in online gambling: an empirical study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33,795–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergin, M. (2011). NVivo 8 and consistency in data analysis: reflecting on the use of a qualitative data analysis program. Nurse Researcher, 18(3).Google Scholar
  4. Biolcati, R., Passini, S., & Griffiths, M. (2015). All-in and bad beat: professional poker players and pathological gambling. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 13, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjerg, O. (2010). Problem gambling in poker: money, rationality and control in a skill-based social game. International Gambling Studies, 10(3), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley, C. & Schroeder, R. D. (2009). Because it’s free poker! A qualitative analysis of free Texas Hold’em Poker tournaments. Sociological Spectrum, 29, 401-430.Google Scholar
  7. Chantal, Y., Vallerand, R., & Vallières, E. (1995). Motivation and gambling involvement. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(6), 755–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Currie, S., Hodgins, D., Casey, D., el-Guebaly, N., Smith, G., Williams, R., Schopflocher, D., & Wood, R. (2012). Examining the predictive validity of low-risk gambling limits with longitudinal data. Addiction, 107, 400–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhillon, J., Horch, J. D., & Hodgins, D. C. (2011). Cultural influences on stigmatization of problem gambling: East Asian and Caucasian Canadians. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(4), 633–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diggle, P. J., Heagerty, P., Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (2002). Analysis of longitudinal data. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dufour, M., Brunelle, N., & Roy, É. (2015). Are poker players all the same? Latent class analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(2), 441–454.Google Scholar
  12. Dufour, M., Petit, S., & Brunelle, N. (2014). Pourquoi le poker est-il si attirant ? Étude qualitative des motivations auprès des joueurs en salle et Internet. Drogue Santé et Société, 12(2), 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. el-Guebaly, N., Casey, D. M., Hodgins, D. C., Smith, G. J., Williams, R. J., Schopflocher, D. P., & Wood, R. T. (2008). Designing a longitudinal cohort study of gambling in Alberta: rationale, methods, and challenges. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(4), 479–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2005). Motivators for change and barriers to help-seeking in Australian problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21(2), 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). L’indice canadien de jeu excessif. (Rapport de recherche). Ontario: Centrecanadien de lutte contre l’alcoolisme et les toxicomanies.Google Scholar
  16. Fiedler, I., & Wilcke, A. (2012). The Market for Online Poker. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 16(1), 7-20.Google Scholar
  17. Gainsbury, S., Wood, R., Russell, A., Hing, N., & Blaszczynski, A. (2012). A digital revolution: comparison of demographic pro les, attitudes and gambling behaviour of Internet and non-Internet gamblers. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1388–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gainsbury, S., Hing, N., & Suhonen, N. (2014a). Professional help-seeking for gambling problems: awareness, barriers and motivators for treatment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(2), 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gainsbury, S., Suhonen, N., & Saastamoinen, J. (2014b). Chasing losses in online poker and casino games: characteristics and game play of Internet gamblers at risk of disordered gambling. Psychiatry Research, 217(3), 220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gendron, R. (2013). Revue de littérature sur les études longitudinales relatives aux jeux de hasard et d’argent. Synthèse rédigée pour Mise sur toi – Le jeu doit rester un jeu. Retrived from :
  21. Griffiths, M., & Barnes, A. (2008). Internet gambling: an online empirical study among student gamblers. International Journal of mental health addiction, 6, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffiths, M., Wardle, H., Orford, J., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2009). Sociodemographic correlates of Internet gambling: findings from the 2007 British gambling prevalence survey. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12(2), 199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffiths, M., Parke, J., Wood, R & Rigbye (2010). Online poker gambling in university students: Further findings from online syvey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8 (1), 82-89.Google Scholar
  24. Hing, N., Breen, H., Buultjens, J., & Gordon, A. (2012). A profile of gambling behaviour and impacts among indigenous Australians attending a cultural event in New South Wales. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 3–20.Google Scholar
  25. Hing, N., Holdsworth, L., Tiyce, M., & Breen, H. (2014). Stigma and problem gambling: current knowledge and future research directions. International Gambling Studies, 14(1), 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hing, N., Russell, A., Gainsbury, S., & Nuske, E. (2016). The public stigma of problem gambling: its nature and relative intensity compared to other health conditions. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(3), 847–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hopley, A. A. B., & Nicki, R. M. (2010). Predictive Factors of Excessive Online Poker Playing. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14, 379-385.Google Scholar
  28. Hopley, A. A. B., Dempsey, K., & Nicki, R. (2012). Texas Hold'Em online poker: A further examination. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 563-572.
  29. Horch, J., & Hodgins, D. (2013). Stereotypes of problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, 28, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kairouz, S., & Nadeau, L. (2014). Enquête ENJHEU – Québec:Portrait du jeu au Québec: prevalence, incidence et trajectoires sur quatre ans. [Portrait of gambling in Québec: prevalence, incidence and trajectories over four years] Université Concordia. Rapport de recherche, Fonds québecois de recherche sur la société et la culture. Consulted November 6, 2015:
  31. Kairouz, S., Nadeau, L., & Paradis, C. (2010). Portrait du jeu au Québec: prévalence, incidence ettrajectoires sur quatre ans. (Rapport de recherche de l’Enquête ENHJEU). Québec, Canada: Université de Concordia.Google Scholar
  32. Khezeli, M., Ramezankhani, A., & Bakhtiyari, M. (2012). Effect of education on nutritional knowledge and stages of fruit and vegetable consumption in elders based on stages of change model. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, 22(91), 90–100.Google Scholar
  33. Ladouceur, R., Shaffer, P., Blaszczynski, A., & Shaffer, H. (2017). Responsible gambling: a synthesis of the empirical evidence. Addiction Research and Theory, 26(3), 226–236.Google Scholar
  34. Laperrière, A. (1997). Les critères de scientificité des méthodes qualitatives. Dans J. Poupart, J.-P. Deslauriers, L.-H. Groulx, A. Laperrière, R. Mayer et A. P. Pires (Dir.) : La recherche qualitative : enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Boucherville, Québec : Gaëtan Morin éditeur.Google Scholar
  35. LaPlante, D., Nelson, S., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. (2008). Stability and progression of disordered gambling: lessons from longitudinal studies. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 53(1), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. LaPlante, D. A., Kleschinsky, J. H., LaBrie, R. A., Nelson, S. E., & Shaffer, H. J. (2009). Sitting at the virtual poker table: a prospective epidemiological study of actual Internet poker gambling behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 711–717.
  37. Liley, J., & Rakow, T. (2010). Probability estimation in poker: a qualified success for unaided judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(5), 496–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mantler, T. (2013). A systematic review of smoking youths’ perceptions of addiction and health risks associated with smoking: utilizing the framework of the health belief model. Addiction Research and Theory, 21(4), 306–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McBride, J., & Derevensky, J. (2009). Internet gambling behaviour in a sample of online gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7, 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCormack, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). What differentiates professional poker players from recreational poker players? A qualitative interview study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10(2), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCormack, A., Shorter, G., & Griffiths, M. (2014). Characteristics and predictors of problem gambling on the Internet. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction, 11(6), 634–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McMullan, J. L., & Kervin, M. (2012). Selling Internet gambling: Advertising, new media and the content of poker promotion. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 622 – 645.Google Scholar
  43. Mihaylova, T., Kairouz, S., & Nadeau, L. (2013). Online poker gambling among university students: risky endeavour or harmless pastime? Journal of Gambling Issues, 28, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (2003). Analyse des données qualitatives. [Qualitative analyses] (2° éd.) Paris: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  45. Mitrovic, D., & Brown, J. (2009). Poker mania and problem gambling: a study of distorted cognitions, motivation and alexithymia. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(4), 489–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Palomäki, J., Laakasuo, M., & Salmela, M. (2013). This is just so unfair!: a qualitative analysis of loss-induced emotions and tilting in on-line poker. International Gambling Studies, 13(2), 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pilver, C., Libby, D., Hoff, R., & Potenza, M. (2013). Gender differences in the relationship between gambling problems and the incidence of substance-use disorders in a nationally representative population sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 133(1), 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poupart, J. (1997). L’entretien de type qualitatif : considérations épistémologiques, théoriques et méthodologiques. Dans J. Poupart, J.-P. Deslauriers, L.-H. Groulx, A. Laperrière, R. Mayer et A. P. Pires (Dir.) : La recherche qualitative : enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Boucherville, Québec: Gaëtan Morin.Google Scholar
  49. Prochaska, J. Q., & DiClemente, C. C. (1992). Stages of change in the modification of problem behaviors. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (pp. 184–214). Sycamore: Sycamore Press.Google Scholar
  50. Recher, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). An exploratory qualitative study of online poker professional players. Social Psychological Review, 14(2), 13–25.Google Scholar
  51. Reith, G., & Dobbie, F. (2013). Gambling careers: a longitudinal, qualitative study of gambling behaviour. Addiction Research and Theory, 21(5), 376–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shead, N. W., Hodgins, D. C., & Scharf, D. (2008). Differences between poker players and non-poker-playing gamblers. International Gambling Studies, 8(2), 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Siler, K. (2010). Social and psychological challenges of poker.Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(3), 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slutske, W. S. (2007). Longitudinal studies of gambling behavior. In G. Smith, D. C. Hodgins, & R. J. Williams (Eds.), Research and measurement issues in gambling studies (pp. 127–154). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  55. Slutske, W. S., Jackson, K. M., & Sher, K. J. (2003). The natural history of problem gambling from age 18 to 29. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(2), 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spurrier, M., & Blaszczynski, A. (2014). Risk perception in gambling: a systematic review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(2), 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Svensson, J., & Romild, U. (2011). Incidence of internet gambling in Sweden: results from the Swedish longitudinal gambling study. International Gambling Studies, 11(3), 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Szabó, A., & Kocsis, D. (2012). Susceptibility to addictive behaviour in online and traditional poker playing environments. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 1, 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tendler, J. (2011). The mental game of poker: proven strategies for improving tilt control, confidence, motivation, coping with variance, and more. Self-published.Google Scholar
  60. Tendler, J. (2013). The mental game of poker 2: proven strategies for improving poker skill, increasing mental performance, and playing in the zone consistently. Self-published.Google Scholar
  61. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Tidwell, M. C., & Hoffman, J. H. (2011). Gambling and problem gambling across the lifespan. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Tidwell, M.-C. O., Hoffman, J. H., & Wieczorek, W. F. (2014). Gambling and problem gambling in the United States: changes between 1999 and 2013. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(3), 695–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Williams, R., West, B., & Simpson, R. (2012). Prevention of problem gambling: a comprehensive review of the evidence, and identified best practices. [Internet]. Available from:
  64. Wills, T., Fehin, P., & Callen, B. (2011). Body mass index knowledge of older adults and motivation to change. British Journal of Community Nursing, 16(3), 112–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wohl, M., Davis, C., Hollingshead, S. (2017). How much have you won or lost? Personalized behavioral feedback about gambling expenditures regulates play. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 437-445.Google Scholar
  66. Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Parke, J. (2007). Acquisition, development, and maintenance of online poker playing in a student sample. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 354-361.Google Scholar
  67. Wood, R., Williams, R., & Lawton, P. (2007). Why do Internet gamblers prefer online versus land-based venues? Some preliminary findings and implications. Journal of Gambling Issues, 20, 235–251.Google Scholar
  68. Wood, R.T.A et Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Why Swedish people play online poker and factors that can increase or decrease trust in poker Web sites: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Gambling Issues, 21, 80-99.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magali Dufour
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Adèle Morvannou
    • 1
  • Natacha Brunelle
    • 3
  • Élise Roy
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada
  2. 2.Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la SantéUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada
  3. 3.Psychoeducation DepartmentUniversité du QuébecTrois-RivièresCanada
  4. 4.Institut National de Santé Publique du QuébecMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations