Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 921–931 | Cite as

Theoretical Loss and Gambling Intensity (Revisited): A Response to Braverman et al. (2013)

  • Michael Auer
  • Mark D. Griffiths
Original Paper


In this paper, we provide a brief response to Braverman et al. (J Gambl Stud. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9428-z, 2013b) critique of our ‘Theoretical Loss’ metric as a measure of monetary gambling intensity (Auer and Griffiths in J Gambl Stud. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9376-7, 2013a; Auer et al. in Gaming Law Rev Econ 16:269–273, 2012). We argue that ‘gambling intensity’ and ‘gambling involvement’ are essentially the same construct as descriptors of monetary gambling activity. Additionally, we acknowledge that playing duration (i.e., the amount of time—as opposed to money—actually spent gambling) is clearly another important indicator of gambling involvement—something that we have consistently noted in our previous studies including our empirical studies on gambling using behavioural tracking data. Braverman and colleagues claim that the concept of Theoretical Loss is nullified when statistical analysis focuses solely on one game type as the house edge is constant across all games. In fact, they state, the correlation between total amount wagered and Theoretical Loss is perfect. Unfortunately, this is incorrect. To disprove the claim made, we demonstrate that in sports betting (i.e., a single game type), the amount wagered does not reflect monetary gambling involvement using actual payout percentage data (based on 52,500 independent bets provided to us by an online European bookmaker). After reviewing the arguments presented by Braverman and colleagues, we are still of the view that when it comes to purely monetary measures of ‘gambling intensity’, the Theoretical Loss metric is a more robust and accurate measure than other financial proxy measures such as ‘amount wagered’ (i.e., bet size) as a measure of what players are prepared to financially risk while gambling.


Gambling intensity Gambling involvement Theoretical Loss Sports betting House edge Stake size Behavioral tracking 


  1. Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013a). An empirical investigation of theoretical loss and gambling intensity. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9376-7.
  2. Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013b). Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 647–660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Auer, M., Schneeberger, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Theoretical loss and gambling intensity: A simulation study. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 16, 269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braverman, J., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & Shaffer, H. J. (2013a). Using cross-game behavioral markers for early identification if high-risk internet gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 868–877.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Braverman, J., & Shaffer, H. J. (2012). How do gamblers start gambling: Identifying behavioural markers of high-risk internet gambling. European Journal of Public Health, 22, 273–278.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Braverman, J., Tom, M., & Shaffer, H. J. (2013b). Tilting at windmills: A comment on Auer and Griffiths. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9428-z.
  7. Broda, A., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., LaBrie, R. A., Bosworth, L. B., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Virtual harm reduction efforts for Internet gambling: Effects of deposit limits on actual internet sports gambling behaviour. Harm Reduction Journal, 5, 27.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Delfabbro, P. H., King, D. L., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Behavioural profiling of problem gamblers: A critical review. International Gambling Studies, 12, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dragicevic, S., Tsogas, S. B., & Kudic, A. (2011). Analysis of casino online gambling data in relation to behavioural risk markers for high-risk gambling and player protection. International Gambling Studies, 11, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gray, H. M., LaPlante, D. A., & Schaffer, H. J. (2012). Behavioral characteristics of Internet gamblers who trigger corporate responsible gambling interventions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,. doi: 10.1037/a0028545.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Internet gambling, player protection and social responsibility. In R. Williams, R. Wood, & J. Parke (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet gambling (pp. 227–249). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Griffiths, M. D., & Auer, M. (2011). Online versus offline gambling: Methodological considerations in empirical gambling research. Casino and Gaming International, 7(3), 45–48.Google Scholar
  13. Griffiths, M. D., & Whitty, M. W. (2010). Online behavioural tracking in internet gambling research: Ethical and methodological issues. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3, 104–117.Google Scholar
  14. LaBrie, R. A., Kaplan, S., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Inside the virtual casino: A prospective longitudinal study of internet casino gambling. European Journal of Public Health, 18, 410–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, 711–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. LaPlante, D. A., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Population trends in internet sports gambling. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2399–2414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nelson, S. E., LaPlante, D. A., Peller, A. J., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Real limits in the virtual world: Self-limiting behavior of internet gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 463–477.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wardle, H., Moody, A., Griffiths, M. D., Orford, J., & Volberg, R. (2011a). Defining the online gambler and patterns of behaviour integration: Evidence from the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. International Gambling Studies, 11, 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., et al. (2011b). British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.neccton ltdLondonUK
  2. 2.International Gaming Research Unit, Psychology DivisionNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations