4174-Article Text-6841-2-10-20220201.pdf

Erroneous Beliefs Verbalized While Playing Online Poker

Priscilla Brochu,

1,2

Isabelle Giroux,

1,2

Julie Dufour,

1,2

Daniel Fortin-Guichard,

1,2

Étienne Gagnon,

1,2

David Paquet,

1,2

Isabelle Smith,

1,2

& Serge Sévigny

2,3

École de psychologie, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada

Centre québécois d’excellence pour la prévention et le traitement du jeu et GRIF-

Jeu, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada

Département des fondements en pratiques en éducation, Université Laval, Québec,

Québec, Canada

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare erroneous beliefs of online Texas

Hold’em poker players with different level of severity of problems, in situations that

could cause negative emotions. Verbalizations of three groups of gamblers (low-risk,

n=10; at-risk, n=10 and problem, n=10) while playing an online poker tournament in

a laboratory setting. Participants were not aware that they played against research

assistants and that all cards received were predetermined and the same for all

participants. Beliefs related to the illusion of control were found in the three groups

of gamblers. At-risk and probl em gambl ers’ perceptions denote a greater inﬂuence

given to their ability on the game results, with even a denial of the part played by

chance. Poker-speciﬁc beliefs, different from those usually held by game-of-chance

gamblers, were also found. These results are discussed to provide ideas in how to

adapt erroneous perceptions questionnaires for online poker players.

Keywords: poker, erroneous beliefs, emotions, online gambling

Introduction

The outcome of most gambling activities is essentially based on chance, with no

skill involved. Poker, on the other hand, comma nds an element of skill, which sets

it apart from other gambling activities (Bonneau & Turgeon, 2010; Schoenberg,

2018). According to poker players, three types of skills are required in this game:

(1) technical, related to the knowledge of the game rules and odds, (2) psychological,

129

Journal of Gambling Issues

Volume 49, January 2022 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2022.49.6

http://igi.camh.net/doi/pdf/10.4309/jgi.2022.49.6

such as decoding opponents’ behaviour and controlling attention spans, impulsivity

and negative emotions provoked by the game, and (3) ﬁnancial, involving balance

between risk-taking and minimizing losses (Bouju et al., 2013). Empirical studies

have shown that chance inﬂuences game outcomes more than skill in the short term

(Meyer et al., 2013). In the long term, skill then tends to gain a little inﬂuence on

game outcomes (Bjerg, 2010; Turner & Fritz, 2001), particularly for players who

devote a considerable number of hours to the game (Fiedler & Rock, 2009). But even

with an extensive skillset and a considerable game experience, chance tends to

dominate up to 75% of the course of the game (Du ersh et al., 2017).

Erroneous beliefs

Amisunderstandingoftheinﬂuence of skill on the game outcome can contribute to the

development of gambling problems (Barrault & Varescon, 2012; Lévesque et al., 2018).

According to the cognitive theory of gambling problems, the quantity of erroneous beliefs

and the strength of the gambler’sconvictionaboutthosesamebeliefscontributetothe

persistence of gambling behaviours and eventually to the development of a gambling

disorder (Barrault & Varescon, 2012; Jacobsenetal.,2007;Lévesqueetal.,2018;Raylu

&Oei,2004).Theprimaryerroneousbeliefsobservedingamblersarerelatedtoa

distorted understanding of the aspect of chance and that game events must ‘‘ even out.’’

Acommonexampleoferroneousbeliefsistheillusionofcontrol,whereanindividual

believes that it is possible to inﬂuence or predict the outcome of a game more than

realistically possible based on one’sknowledge,skills,orpersonalcharacteristics(Lambos

&Delfabbro,2007;Smith&Giroux,2019).Theillusionofcontrolhasmanyvariants,

such as the belief that it is possible to predict upcoming results by ﬁnding patterns and

links among past results (illusory correlation), selective attribution of gains to personal

skill and losses to chance (self-serving bias), and attributing more importance to gains

than losses (availability bias;Barrault&Varescon,2012;Fortune&Goodie,2012).

Erroneous beliefs in poker

Erroneous beliefs have been studied in poker players using questionnaires based on the

beliefs of gamblers who practice mainly gambling activities relying on pure chance

(Lévesque, 2017), an approach which, in turn, has led to interpretation problems.

While erroneous beliefs usually distingu ish pathological from non-pathological

gamblers in gambling activities based on chance (Goodie & Fortune, 2013), Mitrovic

and Brown’sresults(2009)showedthattherenocorrelation existed between the

erroneous beliefs score on the Gambler’s Belief Questionnaire ([GBQ]; Steenberg et al.,

2002) and gambling problems in a sample of poker players when controlling for

participation in gambling activities that did not involve skill. Conversely, the results of

other studies suggested that erroneous beliefs, particularly the illusion of control

assessed using the Gambling Related Cognition Scale ([GRCS]; Raylu & Oei, 2004),

were related to the presence of gambling problems in poker (Barrault, 2012; Barrault &

Varescon, 2013). In the latter study, a questionnaire speciﬁc to poker was used to better

encapsulate the mutual inﬂuence of chance and skill of this gambling activity. Contrary

to most gambling activities, it is not erroneous nor illusory for poker players to believe

130

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

that it is possible to inﬂuence the outcome of the game with knowledge or the use of

strategy (Barrault & Varescon, 2012; 2015; Bjerg, 2010).

Brochu and colleagues (2015) used a qualitative method to evaluate beliefs related to

chance and skill for three groups of Texas Hold’em online poker players presenting

different levels of gambling problem severity: non-problem, at-risk and problem

gambling. The results of the at-risk and problem poker players focus groups

suggested players believe that their skill has a major inﬂuence on the outcome of the

game. In the at-risk and problem groups, verbalizations related to the importance of

practice and learning from losses were observed. Other verbalizations in the at-risk

and problem groups suggested that these players overestimate their respective skill

levels. For example, in the at-risk group, the idea that it is possible to chase losses

easily because of players’ skill, as well as a previous belief that it was possib le for the

players to become professional poker players (before being confronted with evidence

of their true skill level), were both mentioned. Losses are attributed to external

sources such as cheating opponents and non-randomly generated online cards in the

at-risk and problem groups, which could reﬂect those gamblers’ tendency to protect

beliefs about their own skill levels.

Erroneous beliefs expressed while gambling

Previous qualitative studies were mostly focused on the beliefs of poker players

outside of a game and collected data via individual interviews or focus groups. Bjerg

(2010) noted that, because of the skill involved in poker, it was not possible to

determine whether beliefs were erroneous or correct without analyzing the context of

the game within which they occurred. Research in this domain has also shown that

gamblers’ erroneous perceptions are mostly observable when they are active in a

game. Sévigny and Ladouceur (2003) introduced the ‘‘ double switching’’ cognitive

concept to explain the incoherence between gamblers’ beliefs and behaviours during

a game, compared to outside of a game session. Many factors may explain the

phenomenon of ‘‘ double switching.’’ Certain structural characteristics of gambling

activities that promote the impression of control over the outcome, such as stopping

devices on video lottery terminals, may have an inﬂuence on the emergence of

erroneous beliefs and behaviours in gamblers during a game session (Ladouceur &

Sévigny, 2003). Andrade and Iyer (2007) showed that outside of a game session,

gamblers tend to underestimate the impact of negative emotions related to losses on

their subsequent behaviour. These negative emotions strongly motivate them to

recuperate their losses and re-establish their emotional equilibrium, thus facilitating

risky gambling behaviours motivated by speciﬁc erroneous beliefs.

In poker, emotions related to the players’ interpretations of the game situation

concerning chance and skill have a considerable inﬂuence on their subsequent behaviours

(Barrault, 2012; Bjerg, 2010; Lévesque,2017;Moreauetal.,2020a).Apoordecision

made under the inﬂuence of strong negative emotions is a phenomenon called ‘‘ tilt,’’ and

is often caused by an unexpected loss (Moreau et al., 2016; 2020b; Palomäki et al., 2014).

With tilt, players end up feeling frustrated because they believe that they have experienced

131

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

an injustice because of chance and can seek a rapid recovery of their losses (Moreau et al.,

2016; 2020a; Palomäki et al., 2013). Since such a comeback is not always possible, players

end up accumulating losses instead of gains (Grifﬁths et al., 2010; Moreau et al., 2020a).

Tilt is said to share certain features with problematic gambling since players experience

losses of control, negative feelings and chasing (Moreau et al., 2016; 2020a). In Bjerg’s

study (2010), poker players in treatment or who have previously been treated for their

gambling problem reported how their incapacity to self-assess their true skill level and the

factors that inﬂuence it (e.g., emotional upsets) were important aspects in their transition

to problematic gambling. Acquiring furtherknowledgeabouterroneousbeliefsduring

game sessions that are likely to trigger negative emotions would allow for a better

understanding of problem gambling in poker players (Moreau et al., 2016).

To our knowledge, the Bouju and colleagues’ (2013) study is the only one thus far

published that has focusedonthebeliefsthataroseinthecontextofapokergame

session. In this inquiry, sixteen poker players took part in face-to-face, semi-structured

interviews and were observed during either an online or ofﬂine poker game session.

The interview classiﬁed poker players by level of problem according to the number of

satisﬁed DSM-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Two criteria or

less refer to social gamblers and the satisfaction of at least three criteria to problem

gamblers. In this study, qualitative analysis results revealed that, compared to social

gamblers, problem gamblers perceived that skill had an increased impact on the game,

which led them to believe they could control chance and quickly make considerable

gains. However, the two groups were not exposed to the same game context during the

experimentation phase (one group was exposed to a mix of online games at the

participant’shome,whiletheotherwasexposedtoofﬂine games in live poker rooms;

all players did not receive he same cards). This decision made the comparison of both

groups’ beliefs dependant, in part, to the game events to which they were exposed.

The role of online poker

Online poker, similar in nature to ofﬂine poker, can also be exceptionally different in

terms of structural characteristics and potential consequences. Since online and

ofﬂine poker are different gambling modalities, the limits of online poker, such as the

potential for fraud (poker bots, cheats-at-play schemes, etc.) and dubious player

practices (computer viruses, hacking, etc.), could also contribute to the reinforcement

of erroneous beliefs, since players often believe they are being cheated when they lose

in online poker games ( McMullan, 2012). Participation in online poker is associated

with high rates of gambling problems (Sirola et al., 2018). In recent years, research

on poker has addressed the characteristics of the game in terms of chance and skill

(Duersh et al., 2020; Palomäki et al., 2020). Since erroneous beliefs related to chance

and skill are recognized for their involvement in the development and persistence

of gambling problems (Lévesque et al., 2018), it is important to document those

erroneous beliefs in relation to the practice of online poker.

Instruments measuring erroneous beliefs should consider the different structural

characteristics of the games played by gamblers. It is possible that the erroneous

132

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

beliefs of poker players are different than the false beliefs of those gamblers who

play games based mainly on chance (Barrault & Varescon, 2012; 2015). It is also

necessary to study poker players’ erroneous beliefs to adapt eventually assessment

tools to poker compared to other gambling activities. A qualitative research design is

appropriate for this task, as it has been applied during the developmental phase of

the current cognitive theory on gambling problems (Goodie & Fortune, 2013).

Qualitative research also allows access to the beliefs of poker players as verbalized

within the dialect of the game (Baribeau, 2010).

Study design, aim and objectives

The present study consisted of a poker tournament where participants were asked to

verbalize their thoughts while playing. The aim of this study was to compare the

erroneous beliefs of three groups of online poker players with different levels of

gambling problem severity. Players were compared in situations that were likely to

evoke negative emotions and tilt during an online tournament of Texas Hold’em

poker (i.e., situations where unexpected losses have more chance of occurring). This

game was chosen because of its high popularity at the time of the study (Grifﬁths &

Barnes, 2008). Since erroneous beliefs are generally related to probl em gambling,

the three groups were expected to differ with respect to particular erroneous beliefs.

The three-group design also allows for a better documentation and comparison

of erroneous beliefs, as verbalized by players at three different problem levels. This

documentation will then provide a basisforfutureadaptationofcognitive

interventions and existing assessment toolsforplayerswithgamblingproblemsrelated

to this game.

Method

Participants

Participants were invited to play in an online poker tournament. The inclusion

criteria were as follows. Each participant was required to be (1) 18 years of age or

older; (2) a man;

(3) someone who had played online poker for money at least

once a month over the past six months; and (4) someone who had never have been

treated previously for a gambling problem (since therapies for problem gamblers

are mostly of a cognitive-behavioural nature and aim to restructure e rroneous

beliefs related to chance, the inclusion of gamblers who have previously been

treated for a gambling p roblem would have biased the beliefs under study).

Recruitment methods included a list of volunteers available at the Centre

québécois d’excellence pour la prévention et le traitement du jeu research center

The dialect of the game refers to the speciﬁc terms and expressions used by poker players to

communicate about certain aspects of poker (i.e., pocket cards, playing the rush, rabbit hunting, etc.).

One study conducted on 180 online poker players described them as young single men, sensation

seekers, persons working full-time, and persons playing approximately ﬁve times per week (Barrault

& Varescon, 2013; Bonn aire & Barrault, 2018; Kairouz et al., 2016; Moreau et al., 2016).

133

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

(n=3); the publication of advertisements in local newspapers (n=6), on the radio

(n=3), and on a poker forum (n=1); solicitations on the local sport network website

(rds.ca; n=1); e-mails to the community of students and employees at Université

Laval (n=6), a nd word of mou th (n=10). The recruitment period took place

between February 10 and September 8, 2010.

Thirty participants were selected to participate in the study according to their score

on the National Opinion Research Center’s DSM Screen (NODS; Gerstein et al.,

1999). They were placed into one of the following three groups: non-problem

gamblers (score of 0; n=10), at-risk gamblers (score of 1 or 2; n=10), and problem

gamblers (score of 3 or 4; n=10).

Because of the small sample size, only a visualinspectionofthesociodemographicand

gambling habits variables was carried to verify if groups differed. The subjects were

from Quebec city (90%) and others regions (10%) and spoke French as a ﬁrst language,

except for one participant who spoke French ﬂuently as a second language. The mean

age of the sample was 26.33 years (SD =7.23).Themajorityofthesamplewassingle

(73.33%) and without children (76.67%). Fiftypercentofparticipantsheldacollege

degree and 23.33% held a university degree. The participants were mostly students

(46.67%) or worked full-time (36.67%). Over half of the subjects (56.67%) earned a

personal annual income of $20,000 or less. Participants had played online poker for an

average of 3.62 years (SD =2.29).Thesubjectshadplayedapproximately three times a

week over the previous six months for an average of 26.11 hours (SD =31.92)per

month over the last year and spent a mean of $398.99 per month (SD =$1,124.10).

The median largest sums lost was much higher for the problem gamblers ($1,150) than

the non-problem gamblers ($175) and the at-risk gamblers ($100). Surprisingly, the

mean hours played, frequency of gambling, and amount spent in the last 12 months

by non-problematic gamblers (NPG) for online poker represent higher amounts

quantitatively than for at-risk gamblers orproblemgamblers.Ontheotherhand,the

gambling habits for NPG are less frequent and the amount spent is lower than the

other groups for the other two gambling forms. The mean amount spent by at-risk

gamblers in the last 12 months on casino games ($655.56) and sports betting ($402.75)

is also surprisingly high compared to the other two groups (NPG: casino games =

$1.00, sports betting = $8.00; PG: casino games = $0.00, sports betting = $17.78). This

ﬁnding could be explained by a higher mean annual income in the at-risk group

($31,000 to $40,000) in comparison to the other two groups ($11,000 to $20,000).

We provide further details concerning the gambling habitsofthethreegroupsofpoker

players at poker and at other games in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Questionnaires

Sociodemographic and poker habits questionnaire

This questionnaire, formulated speciﬁcally for the present study, includes 28 open-

ended and multiple-choice questions on gender, place of birth, ﬁrst language, marital

status, education, main occupation, religion, personal annual income, preferred poker

134

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

websites and gambling establishments, types and variants of poker played, amount of

money spent, time spent playing, and the number of years of experience at the game.

National Opinion Research Center’s DSM Screen (NODS)

The translation and French adaptation (Jacques, 2000) of the NODS (Gerstein et al.,

1999) was used to screen for pathological gambling

over the past year in the sample

of online poker players. The 17 diagnostic questions are based on the 10 diagnostic

criteria of the fourth edition of the DSM-IV (APA, 2000). The items are

dichotomous (i.e., yes or no questions) such as, ‘‘ Over the past 12 months, have

Table 1

Gambling Habits in Poker

NPG (n=10) ARG (n=10) PG (n=10)

Habits by game modality M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Online poker

Years of experience 3.25 (3.14) 3.50 (2.04) 4.10 (1.58)

Frequency (past 6 months) 55.50 (50.38) 78.00 (69.86) 87.80 (61.26)

Frequency (last month) 7.45 (8.41) 12.22 (10.28) 26.60 (38.30)

Money spent (per month) 47.87 (65.42) 979.25 (1,989.43) 250.80 (348.24)

Hours played (per month) 26.00 (34.04) 37.95 (32.01) 44.20 (30.24)

Largest sum won 1,013.33 (1,456.39) 14,174 .80 (42,454.81) 2,853.20 (3,894.30)

Largest sum lost 481.67 (806.39) 6,396.25 (17,618.96) 1,283.33 (788.46)

Poker at the (identiﬁed

gambling site)

Frequency (past 12 mo nths) 2.54 (7.01) 0.70 (1.89) 0.850 (1.76)

Money spent (past 12 months) 2,544.00 (7,765.52) 20.00 (63.25) 327.50 (778.39)

Hours played 17.40 (52.95) 1.80 (4.73) 4.15 (10.30)

Poker at the casino

Frequency (past 12 mo nths) 0.20 (0.42) 0.30 (0.48) 0.95 (1.42)

Money spent (past 12 months) 300.70 (948.44) 125.00 (313.80) 347.50 (770.14)

Hours played (past 12 months) 1.55 (4.73) 1.10 (1.79) 5.40 (11.32)

Poker with friends

Frequency (past 12 mo nths) 23.40 (29.35) 22.15 (22.14) 30.00 (27.75)

Money spent (past 12 months) 255.00 (323.68) 667.00 (1072.24) 979.60 (1625.42)

Hours played (past 12 months) 63.63 (33.30) 92.39 (102.81) 94.65 (75.83)

Note. NPG = non-problem gamblers; ARG = at-risk gamblers; PG = problem gamblers.

Since the NODS was created with the DSM-IV in mind, it has been used to screen pathological

gambling, a term used in the DSM-IV. Subsequent to the publi cation of the DSM-5 in 2013,

pathological gambling is now referred to as ‘‘ gambling disorder.’’ The two terms, even when

considering this change in nomenclature, are conceptually similar. Pathological gambling refers to a

persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behaviour (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

Gambling disorder is deﬁned as a persistent and recurrent problematic gambling behaviour leading to

signiﬁcant impairment or distress, as indicated by different factors (i.e., needing to gamble with

increasing amounts of money to achieve excitement, restlessness or irritability when attempting to

stop gambling, etc.) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

135

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

you needed to gamble with larger amounts of money to get the same feeling of

excitement?’’ The total score on the NODS can vary between 0 and 10, where a score

of 0 indicates the absence of a gambling problem. Scores between 1 and 2 indicate a

risk of developing a gambling problem, scores of 3 or 4 suggest the presence of a

gambling problem, and scores of 5 or above signal the probable presence of

pathological gambling. The original English instrument possesses high internal

consistency and reliability for prevalence over life (r = 0.99) and over the past 12

months (r = 0.98; Gerstein et al., 1999). The French adaptation of the instrument,

administered to a sample of 865 people, shows an internal consistency of 0.91

(Jacques, 2000).

Procedure

Individuals who were interested in participating in the study gave their contact

information to the research center via voicemail. When they were contacted, participants

responded to the sociodemographic and poker habits questionnaire and the NODS.

Eligible participants then received an invitation to participate in an online poker

tournament at Université Laval. Upon their arrival in the laboratory, participants were

instructed to be seated in front of a computerequippedwiththeonlinepokersoftware.

They were joined by an interviewer, a doctorate-level graduate student in psychology.

Participants were informed that the other participants in the tournament were in rooms

on other stories of the building to assure their anonymity. They read and signed the

consent form in which the tournament procedure was explained.

Table 2

Gambling Habits Outside of Poker*

NPG (n=10) ARG (n=10) PG (n=10)

Habits per gambling activity M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Lottery

Frequency (past 12 mo nths) 7.30 (9.84) 9.45 (15.63) 33.85 (50.28)

Money spent (past month) 3.85 (6.62) 2.70 (4.67) 24.00 (53.89)

Casino games

Frequency (past 12 mo nths) 0.50 (0.71) 1.70 (3.68) 12.55 (37.77)

Money spent (past month) 1.00 (3.16) 655.56 (1650.08) 0.00 0.00

Video lottery terminals

Frequency (past 12 mo nths) 0.95 (0.90) 2.60 (5.50) 32.50 (76.91)

Money spent (past month) 0.56 (1.67) 3.10 (6.87) 8.00 (13.98)

Skill games

Frequency (past 12 mo nths) 0.60 (1.07) 5.40 (15.05) 21.30 (47.72)

Money spent (past month) 6.11 (13.64) 50.00 (158.11) 31.11 (68.64)

Sports betting

Frequency (past 12 mo nths) 2.70 (7.85) 4.35 (7.88) 16.30 (37.24)

Money spent (past month) 8.00 (16.19) 402.75 (1263.95) 17.78 (33.83)

Note. NPG = non-problem gamblers; ARG = at-risk gamblers; PG = problem gamblers.

* Bingo, animal race and stock market participation were not included in Table 2 as their rates were either non-existent or

nearly non-existent.

136

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Before signing the consent, participants were informed that they would receive a $40

gift certiﬁcate for a local shopping center as compensation for their participation in the

tournament and $10 in cash to cover their parking fees at the university. To create a

context that is similar to the reality of a poker tournament and to recreate the lure of

gains that players seek, we informed the participants that they had a chance to receive

an additional gift certiﬁcate depending on their position in the tournament: $100 for

ﬁrst place, $50 for second, $30 third, and $10 fourth. After the experiment, for ethical

reasons, the participants who did not ﬁnish the tournament in ﬁrst place received a gift

certiﬁcate in the amount of the difference between the gift certiﬁcate received and the

gift certiﬁcate that was given to the ﬁrst-place winner in the tournament. All the

participants therefore received the same amount in compensation for their participa-

tion in the study ($140 in gift certiﬁcates and $10 in cash for parking fees). Once the

consent form was read and signed, the interviewer explained the instructions for the

verbalizing technique to be used during the tournament (inspired by Ladouceur et al.,

1988): (1) say all the thoughts that come to mind aloud, even those that do not seem

relevant, (2) speak as much as possible and continuously, (3) talk loudly enough to be

heard, and (4) situate self as a poker instructor. Each participant had an opportunity to

practice this technique whileplayingsolitaireforaboutﬁve minutes.

Prior to the study, a software created for this study randomly generated a sequence

of cards for participants and for their opponents (research assistants) until the 30th

hand. During the tournament, for these ﬁrst 30 hands, each participant received the

same series of cards as the other participants, and each opponent (from the same

table position) received the same cards for each participant they played against. On

the 31st hand, participants and opponents received different cards that were

randomly dealt by the software so that the outcome of the tournament was not

biased by the experiment. The tournament was programmed so that the value of the

small and big blind bets increased every 15 minutes according to the following

structure: 15–30, 30–60, 50–100, 100– 200 and 200–400. Two research assistants

assumed the role of opponents (there were four opponents altogether) by following

an opponent game protocol indicating the decisions to be made (wait, fold, call, or

raise) at each round (preﬂop, ﬂop, turn, and river) for the ﬁrst 30 hands of the

tournament. Each protocol considered the cards and decisions made by the

participants. No mistakes in the following of the protocol were made by any of the

research assistants at any moment. The protocols insured that no participant would

be evicted from the tournament before the 31st hand of the game. Throughout the

tournament, the interviewer encouraged the participants to verbalize their beliefs and

questioned them on those beliefs if necessary. After the 30th hand, the research

assistant opponents played for the rest of the tournament without knowing which

cards the participants had and without following a game protocol.

Once the experimentation phase with the tournament was completed for all

participants, they were contacted by telephone or e-mail to reveal the actual context

of the tournam ent, which was that they had played against research assistants who

were following a pre-established game protocol for the ﬁrst 30 hands of the game.

The parti cipants were free to agree or refuse to allow their data to be used for the

137

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

study; none of the participants refused. This study received the approval of the

Comité d’éthique à la recherche sur des êtres humains de l’Université Laval (2009-

032 A-1 / 26-01-2010).

Qualitative analysis procedure

In the Texas Hold’em poker tournament, han ds 2 through 7 were selected for

analysis. According to the probability calculator available on the Poker News

website,

hands 2 through 7 involved unexpected loss situations (small probability of

loss; to see the sequence of hands, refer to Table 3). For example, during the third

hand (participants received the king of hearts and ace of spades), the probability of

gains was relatively strong at the beginning (27% at the preﬂop) but was considerably

reduced (11% at the ﬂop and 6% at the turn) and reached zero at the river.

Unexpected losses are known to generate negative emotions in poker players,

including tilt (Grifﬁths et al., 2010; Moreau et al., 2016; Palomäki et al., 2014).

The research assistants, who were undergraduate psychology students, transcribed

the participants’ verbalizations verbatim for hands 2 through 7 of the tournaments

using Microsoft Word. They transferred the transcription into the qualitative

analysis software QDA Miner version 3.2.9. Thematic analysis was performed

according to the six-step procedure described by Braun and Clarke (2006): (1)

familiarization with the data, (2) development of codes (subthemes), (3) search for

themes, (4) deﬁnition and description of themes, and (5) presentation of themes and

subthemes and their analysis with quotations that support the ﬁndings. An inter-rater

agreement procedure was carried out on 35% of the verbatim content. The raters

then applied the codes (subthemes) to eac h relevant text segment. To be considered

an agreement, the application of a theme to a given text segment had to overlap at

least 50% between raters. The reliability statistic chosen was Krippendorff’s alpha

because of the complexity of the themes and subthemes that arose from the thematic

analysis (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). The val ues of this criterion varied between

0 (total disagreement) to 1 (perfect agreement). Disagreements were resolved by

discussion and reaching a consensus on the re-deﬁnition, fusion, separation, or

Table 3

Tournament Hands Selected for Analysis

Hand Cards Common cards Final hand

2K!7# 9!3!8!K# A~ Pairs of K

3K!A" 7~ 2# 9~ 5# Q" Ace and a King

48~ 5" 6"Q"3"3~ J~ Pair of three with Queen kicker

5A!4~ 4# 10!K"10~ 9~ Two pairs (10 and 4) with Ace kicker

64~ 3" 10!7"Q# 6# 5" Straight (3 to 7)

73# 10! 5# 2# 2"Q~ 8" Pair of two with 10 kicker

http://fr.pokernew s.com/poker-tools/poke r-odds-calculator.htm

138

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

suppression of themes or subthemes until their ﬁnal Krippend orff’s alpha criterion

had a value of 0.70 or more. This cut-off is suggested for exploratory studies

(Neuendorf, 2002). The ﬁnal themes and subthemes are presented in Table 4. The

ﬁnal inter-rater agreement statistic was 97.40% (Krippendorff ’s alpha = 0.79). The

groups of players were compared based on the presence or absence of subthemes

indicating the presence of erroneous beliefs in their verbalizations. The groups were

considered similar when a theme was evoked in all three groups and considered

different when a theme was evoked in only one or two of the three groups.

Results and discussion

Erroneous beliefs

Erroneous beliefs were identiﬁed in each of the three groups (non-problem gamblers,

at-risk gamblers, and problem gamblers). Each erroneous belief was described

Table 4

Themes and Subthemes Related to Beliefs of Chance and Skill

Themes Subthemes

Decision Bad decision / mistake / regret

Good decision

Call / raise

Verbal contradictions

Fold / check

Decision-related elements Number of people in the hand

Opponents’ cards

Participants’ hand

Opponents’ bets

Position around the table

Probabilities

Structure / moment in the tournament

Difﬁcult reading of opponents

Bet or pot amount

Available stack

States / emotions

Other elements

Strategies Bet / raise / reraise

Bluff

Cognitive reassurance

Control

Other strategies

Luck / chance / skill Luck / chance

Rigged game

Believing oneself to be more skillful than opponents

Skill / experience

Not skillful

Playing style Aggressive / risk-taking

Careful / patient / tight

139

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

according to the game context, the group within which it was verbalized, or both.

Erroneous beliefs found in this study were linked to existing literature on erroneous

beliefs in gambling.

The lucky hand

In the non-problem group, the idea that the starting, non-assorted hand of King-7 is

a ‘‘ lucky hand’’ was evoked. This is a medium-strength hand, as its probability of

winning is 28.14% at a table of four players.

The perception of a lucky hand is an

attempt to predict the results of the game based on previous winning experiences.

Unfortunately, the predicted results did not materialize, and this failure led to a loss

associated with negative emotions,

O.K. I have King-7 [king of hearts and 7 of clubs]. This is a hand that I usually

like. [Interviewer (I): Do you?]} Yes, even if it is not forcibly a good hand. [I:

Why do you like that hand?] I don’t know, having played many games, they

have been lucky hands. [I: Oh, O.K.] So, in this case, I will bet more [y] I have

the pair of kings, but if he was lucky [one of the opponents, Player 5], he will be

saved by the ace in the end. And there you go! [Player 5 forms a second pair at

the river (a pair of aces) while he only had a pair of 3s before the last round of

the game.] What is kind of a shame is when you have a pair of kings, not

knowing whether the pair of aces will come out. It’s a shame because I would

lose a big hand. It wouldn’t be fun. (Player #37 from the non-problem group)

The lucky hand reported in the non-problem group is an example of an erroneous

belief known as an illusory correlation, which is the establishment of a link between

independent events in a game (Jacobsen et al., 2007; Labrador et al., 2020). In this

case, players believe that they will be able to predict the outcome of the game based

on their past experiences, although the result of the game depends on winning odds

and one ’s way of playing the game (number of bets made, use of skill). The lucky

hand is a form of illusion of control known as predictive control, which is the

erroneous belief that it is possible to predict the results of a game based on one’s

intuition, emotions, or hypotheses (Mathieu et al., 2018; Toneatto et al., 1997). It is

possible that this erroneous belief also relates to the concept of availability bias or

interpretive contr ol, which is when players remember certain events of a game more

readily, such as their wins, rather than having an overall perspective including both

their wins and losses (Lambos & Delfabbro, 2007; Mathieu et al., 2018; Toneatto

et al., 1997).

Losses because of the opponent’s lack of skill

In the three groups, there were many situations in which the players attributed their

loss to the opponent’s lack of skill. The players reported that their opponents made

http://www.poker-regle-strategie.com/probabilites/probabilites-Texas-holdem-4-joueurs.php

Verbalizations are free translations from French.

140

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

bets that were too low or that were not proportional to the size of the pot, which

made it difﬁcult to detect whether they had a good or a bad hand and made a good

decision as a result (call, raise, or fold). In the problem gambler group, the

opponent’s lack of skill appeared to create frustration and anger, but this was not

observed in the non-problem and at-risk gambler groups.

8-5 [8 of clubs and 5 of spades; hand 4], I’ll never play that. Everyone is in the hand

except me. They keep making strange bets. [I: Which players?] Mostly everyone.

IgetworkedupagainstpeoplewithwhomIusuallyplaypoker.Theydon’trealize

the value of each hand. They’ll have an ace-5 and put all their chips on it. They also

don’trealizethevalueofthebets.Theyput30inapotof500whentheyhavethe

best hand, but also when they have nothing. You can’treallyy Ihavetrouble

playing with players like that. I would rather play against good players. You know

what to expect. (Player #251 from the problem gamblers group)

Anger associated with the lack of skill in an opponent relates to the concept of

ﬂexible attribution (interpretive control) described previously. One player from the

problem gamblers group said, ‘‘ Icanbeskillful,butduetothestyleofthetable,Iam

not playing the way I usually would,’’ emphasizing the belief that his loss was because

of the opponent’s lack of skill rather than his own. The opponents’ level of skill and

strategy constitutes a large part of the chance aspect that is involved in poker and

inﬂuences the players’ odds of winning. However, in the problem gamblers group, the

opponent’slackofskillandtheuncertaintyitgeneratedintheplayers’ decision-

making was interpreted as an injustice rather than a fact of the game.

In another excerpt of the transcript for the problem gamblers group, a participant

expressed his frustration of unexpectedly losing a hand to an opponent who would

not have called that hand if the opponent had been skilled.

Ace-3 [Ace of spades and 3 of diamonds: the opponent’s cards at hand 2]. Damn

that was ugly! He called myy damn that was ugly! What a donkey [bad poker

player]! I put in as much money as there was in the pot, and he called 200 with

his pair of 3s when he had three hearts [followed by his pair of 3s regardless of

the possibility that an opponent could have a ﬂush, as there were three heart

cards on the board]. [I: Uh huh.] Now I have ace-king [participant’s cards at

hand 3] and I am angry. What a donkey! (Player #110 from the problem

gambler group)

At this hand, the participant had the best hand at the turn—a pair of kings—and

faced the possibility (a 19.6% chance) of completing a ﬂush in hearts on the river.

The probability that the opponent would complete a second pair on the river was

only 7%. Despite the participant’s correct interpretation of the game situation, his

feeling of anger, which reﬂected his belief of injustice, appears erroneous. His belief

of injustice concerning chance relates to the concept of ‘‘ moral indignation’’

discussed by Palomäki and colleagues (2013) within a sample of online poker

players. Moral indignation is expressed when players erroneously expect that chance

will be on their side and favor a positive outcome of the game for them. According to

141

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

this study, this state of mind can create risky situations in which players seek to chase

their losses and re-establish the expected balance between their wins and losses and

thus, their emotional equilibrium.

Minimization of the consequences of loss or the player’s role in his loss

After incurring an unexpected loss (because of the strength of the cards and the

associated winning odds) at hand 3, a tendency to minimize the consequences of

the loss or of the player’s role in the loss was observed in the at-risk gamblers group.

The participants had a rather strong starting hand (ace and king), but the cards

on the board (ﬂop, turn, and river) did not allow them to increase that strength.

But you know, even if I have the short stack right now [a small quantity of

chips], at this point, I am not very worried. [I: No?] It’s happened to me so often

to get back up y No that’s not true, it has happened to me a few times to get

back up and win. (Player from the at-risk gambler group)

I did not lose to a hand where the guy had 4-2 [an opponent won the hand by

forming a ﬂush on the river]. It’s for sure that I am a little disappointed, but at

the same time, I played what I had to play so it’s not a big deal. (Player #229

from the at-risk gambler group)

Overestimating one’schancesofrecuperatinglossesasmentionedintheﬁrst of the two

quotations above relates to the erroneous belief known as ‘‘ chasing losses’’ (Jacobsen

et al., 2007). Players’ beliefs that they can make up for their losses constitutes an illusion

of control known as probability control, which is based on a poor comprehension of odds

(Labrador et al., 2020; Toneatto et al., 1997). The minimization of a loss in the second

quotation above constitutes an attribution bias. In that hand, participants began with a

seemingly strong combination (ace-king), but the cards that appeared on the board at

each round of the game (14% on the ﬂop, 11% on the turn, and 0% on the river)

decreased the probability of winning. To continue betting regardless of the small

probability of winning was not a proper strategy. In this case, this strategy was a way to

attribute one’slosstochance(theopponent’sgoodcards)ratherthantotheplayer’sown

lack of skill (the poor decision to continue the hand after the ﬂop). This type of reasoning

is called interpretive control, a form of illusion of control in which wins are attributed

ﬂexibly to skill while losses are attributed to chance or other dispositions (Baboushkin et

al., 2001; Mathieu et al., 2018; Toneatto et al., 1997). Minimizing the consequences of

losses or of the players’ own role in the loss as observed in the at-risk gambler group

appears to protect their belief of their own personal skill level. Players might convince

themselves that their personal skill level appears high enough to tolerate their losses while

modulating their negative emotions and the associated negative consequences.

The online game is rigged

In the at-risk and problem gambler groups, a belief that the online game was rigged

was mentioned.

142

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

To me, online poker is just an occasional replacement for when I can’t play in

person y because I don’t trust the poker software on the Internet. I ﬁnd that

the odds are higher. While certain hands are rarely seen in person, we see them

often when playing online. So that’s why I never play large amounts,

I occasionally play in small online tournaments at $1, $3 maximum. (Player

#235 from the at-risk gambler group)

I never have the impression that the cards are already set in advance. I don’t

have the impression that the cards to come are always the same. [I: What do you

mean?] When I am playing, I always have the impression [y] that if I push, my

ace could come out, more than if I had played in small bets, like now, if I pushed

all-iny. Anyway, on the big poker sites, on Stars, Tilt, that’s the impression

I developed over time, that aggressive players are rewarded, and players that

wait do not get them [the cards that they want]. I have come to think that they

probably just want their tournaments to roll faster.y If the all-in always win,

they come back into the game and it never ends, whereas if they get them out,

it is beneﬁcial for the game. The losers can go to another table, start a new

game. (Player #132 from the problem gambler group)

Beliefs that the online game was rigged (non-random distribution of cards) were

verbalized in the at-risk and problem gambler groups, although in a slightly different

manner. In the at-risk group, the reported belief was that the odds were higher of

getting strong hands (for example getting a ﬂush happens more often on the Internet

than is normally expected with chance). This belie f is erroneous because the players’

cards were generated randomly during the online tournament, and the belief seems to

correspond to an incoherence between the participant’s own belief of chance and

actual results because of chance. This belief is an example of gambler's fallacy

(a form of probability control), which consists of an incorrect comprehension of the

independence of game events. The players who demonstrated this belief expected

that the odds during a short game sequence would correspond to the same odds in

the long term over a long game sequence (Fortune & Goodie, 2012). Their belief of

chance rendered patterns incoherent, such as a series of strong hands that are played

close to each other in time. The belief of higher odds of obtaining strong hands in

online poker seemed to produce a detachment from the consequences of the loss and

from the associated emotions. By attributing the loss to an external factor such as the

non-random generation of the cards, players minimized their responsibility in the

loss. This interpretation may aim to protect the players’ sense of personal skill.

According to this hypothesis, the belief of higher odds of strong hands in online

poker could be a manifestation of an illusion of interpretive control known as ﬂexible

attribution. As mentioned previously, this type of erroneous belief inﬂuences players

to attribute their wins to their personal skill and their losses to external or contextual

factors (Baboushkin et al., 2001; Mathieu et al., 2018; Toneatto et al., 1997).

In the problem gambler group, the belief related to rigged online poker refers to the

belief that it is possible to inﬂuence chance with one’s actions. In the cited example

above, player #132 stated, ‘‘ When I am playing, I always have the impression [y]

143

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

that if I push, my ace could come out, more than if I had played in small bets.’’

He mentioned that the cards obtained can vary depending on the amount of the

bet made; the higher the bet, the higher the odds of obtaining strong cards. This

belief underlies an overestimation of one’s personal capacity to inﬂuence the events

of a game (active illusory control; Lambos & Delfabbro, 2007; Mathieu et al., 2018;

Toneatto et al., 1997).

It was interesting to note that beliefs of a rigged online game were indicated after the

loss at hand 3, while an opponent was completing his ﬂush in an unexpected way on

the river. Situations of unexpected loss—‘‘ bad beat’’ in poker slang—may possibly

generate these kinds of erroneous interpretations.

To summarize, the main erroneous belief themes observed during the game were

related to: (1) decisions, (2) decision-related elements, (3) strategies, (4) luck, chance,

or skill, and (5) playing styles (see Table 4). The beliefs observed in the non-proble m

and the problem group were mainly based on 2 and 4, while those in the at-risk

group were mainly based on 1, 2 and 4. The main sub-themes observed in the non-

problem group were related to the player’s past experiences playing poker, emotions,

and the opponent’s lack of skill. The sub-themes observed in the at-risk group were

mainly related to cognitive reassurance, the opponent’s luck, and the feeling of

playing a rigged game because of gambler’s fallacy. Those observed in the problem

group were related to the frustration and anger caused by the opponent’s lack of

skill, and the feeling of playing a rigged game because of the manipulation of chance

by the opponent.

It is interesting to note that certain of the same themes and subthemes tend to repeat

themselves in the three groups. The main difference therefore lies in the player’s

emotional reaction to the events of the game, which is better illustrated in the sub-

themes (i.e., anger and injustice in the problem group, but not in the at-risk or the

non-problem group).

General discussion

The aim of this paper was to compare the speciﬁc erroneous beliefs of three unique

groups of Texas Hold’em online poker players (i.e., non-problem, at-risk, and

problem) as verbalized during game situations likely to generate negative emotions.

When observing the erroneous beliefs reported in the three groups of gamblers,

it appears clear that they are all related to illusions of control in one form or another

(predictive, interpretive, probability, or active).

Erroneous beliefs relating to illusions of control

While the whole sample of participants was dealt the same sequence of cards, certain

forms of illusion of control were noted in speciﬁc groups. This was the case for the

illusion of predictive control, which was only noted in the non-problem group.

Interpretive and probability control were identiﬁed in the three groups of gamblers.

144

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Active control (i.e., making higher bets leads to stronger cards) was only observed in

the problem gambler group. Those illusions of control were identiﬁed through the

erroneous beliefs verbalized by the players in each group. Other studies have

previously shown that online poker players tend to rely on more erroneous beliefs

than other types of poker players (Dufour et al., 2015). Since the chosen modality of

the poker game was online, the erroneous beliefs observed in the context of this study

are effectively speciﬁc to the experience of online poker players and the context of an

online poker game.

The intensity of the players’ denial of the role of chance in the game, or a lack of

questions about the inﬂuence of one’s own skill on the outcome of the game appears

to distinguish the erroneous beliefs of the at-risk and problem gamblers from those of

the non-problem gamblers. While the non-problem gamblers sometimes appeared to

feel that they had more control over the game’s outcome than they did (e.g., ‘‘ lucky

hand’’ ), the belief of control in the at-risk gambler group appeared stronger because

of their belief that they could make up for their losses, as well as their interpretation

of their losses as caused by factors other than their personal skill. Beliefs of a rigged

online game (higher probability of strong cards) and that losses were because of their

opponent’s lack of skill as observed in the at-risk and problem gambler groups

emphasize their denial of the role of chance in poker.

The importance of the perception of control over the game’s outcome, or not

questioning one’s skill level with respect to gambling problem severity were also

emphasized in the results of focus groups conducted with online poker players

(no problem, at-risk, and problem; Brochu et al., 2015). The beliefs verbalized in the

at-risk and problem groups, such as the importance of practice, acquiring

knowledge, and learning from one’s losses showed that these gamblers consider

skill to be more important than non-problem gamblers, as the latter did not display

this type of belief. In the at-risk and problem gambler groups, personal levels of skill

appeared to be overestimated when compared to the non-problem group because of

the belief that they could make up for their losses or that they had believed at one

time that they could become professional poker players until they were confronted

with evidence that this is not an easy feat. Beliefs resulti ng from signiﬁcant denial of

one’s own lack of skill or control on the outcome of the game (e.g., cheating

opponents or non-random generation of cards) were noted in the at-risk and problem

gambler groups, but not in the non-problem group.

Erroneous beliefs and the integrity of online poker

At-risk and problem gamblers’ beliefs related to the lack of integrity of the online

game (e.g., non-random generation of cards and cheating opponents) as observed in

both this inquiry and Brochu and colleagues’ study (2015) raise certain questions.

Although these beliefs were reported in a context in which cards were generated

randomly, this type of fraud has been conﬁrmed on certain poker websites. For

example, online robots—virtual opponents with an artiﬁcial intelligence that can

extract gains from consumers—were used on reputed websites such as PokerStars

145

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

and Full Tilt (Dance, March 13, 2011). Gamblers’ doubts regarding the integrity of

the game are therefore sometimes justiﬁed. Although PokerStars and Full Tilt were

the most-visited websites by all three groups of poker players in this study, doubts

concerning game integrity were only verbalized in the at-risk and problem gambler

groups. Could it be possible that the frequency and intensity of these doubts are

related to the presence of a gambling problem?

Alternative explanations to fraud and cheating were mentione d in the at-risk

gambler group studied by Brochu and colleagues (2015) but were not mentioned in

the problem gambler group. For example, concerning the idea that the odds of

obtaining strong hands online are higher than the odds of obtaining such hands

ofﬂine (which allows website operators to earn higher amounts of money at each

pot), it was mentioned in the at-risk gambler group that this ﬁnding can be explained

by the speed of the online game and the higher volume of hands played compared to

an ofﬂine game. Such a determination was also the case for the number of bad beats

observed in an online poker game, which can be explained by the tendency to

remember unexpected or less probable game events more easily, as reported by the

at-risk gambler group.

Considering these results, it seems that at-risk gamblers manifest more cognitive

ﬂexibility when interpreting their losses compared to the problem gamblers.

Moreover, it is possible that attributing losses to the online game’s lack of integrity

as seen in the problem gambler group makes it difﬁcult for these gamblers to

question their own level of skill or the limits of their inﬂuence on the outcome of the

game, which encourages them to continue playing.

Erroneous beliefs in clinical practice

When examining certain questionnaires for erroneous beliefs in poker players,

it appears relevant to test additional items that better reﬂect the beliefs reported by

the gamblers in this study to determine whether these items would help discriminate

between poker players with and without gambling problems. Since poker is a

popular online gambling activity, it appears relevant to add items assessing ﬂexible

attribution that target dispositions or circumstances that occur in this online game.

Items such as ‘‘ I do not trust online poker websites’’ or ‘‘ When I play poker online,

I sometimes feel that the cards are not generated randomly’’ could be tested.

Considering the multi-player context in poker, it could be interesting to add an item

that evaluates ﬂexible attribution, such as ‘‘ I sometimes think that my losses are

caused by my opponents’ lack of skill. ’’ Certain items that evaluate acti ve illusory

control also do not appear to be adapted to the reality of poker players. An item such

as ‘‘ I have a particular way of betting that allows me to increase my chances of

winning’’ could assess active illusory control more adequately in poker players.

Different items in gambling questionnaires measure illusory correlations (predictive

control), but none assess the lucky hand concept reported in the non-problem

gambler group of this study. Rather, there are general items that assess gamblers’

146

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

capacity to predict upcoming results rather than an example of illusory correlation

that can occur at poker (i.e., GBQ: ‘‘ I am pretty accurate at predicting when a ‘win’

will occur’’ ). An item such as ‘‘ In my experience, certain hands that are not

necessarily associated with high odds of winning are favorable to me’’ could be

tested.

Many questionnaire items assess the idea of chasing one’s losses in gambling (GBQ:

‘‘ If I continue to gamble, it will eventually pay off and I will make money’’ ; GABS:

‘‘ If I lose, it is important to stick with it until I get even’’ ). If the common language

of poker players as observed in this study was used for questionnaires, an item such

as ‘‘ Even if I have a small stack, it is O.K. because I know that I can catch up’’ could

be used speciﬁcally with poker players. All the aforementioned recommendations

still hold relevancy at the time of publication, considering the fact that those

questionnaires still hold a reasonable amount of use in clinical assessment to this day

(Bücker et al., 2019; King & Whelan, 2020; Mestre-Bach et al., 2020).

Erroneous beliefs revealing a high degree of denial of chance were observed when

gamblers faced unexpected losses. As stated by Grifﬁths and colleagues (2010) and

Moreau (2016; 2020a), tilt (i.e., frustration associated with the impression of

experiencing an injust ice because of chance) often occurs after an unexpected loss.

Research concerning negative emotions and perceptions in the context of unexpected

losses could allow for further understanding of the erroneous beliefs of poker players.

Considering these results, prevention and treatmen t strategies aiming to help

gamblers reﬂect on their level of skill, use of strategy, and the limits of their inﬂuence

on the game’s outcome could be beneﬁcial since poker, compared to other gambling

activities, partly relies on skill, which can emphasize erroneous beliefs in players.

In poker, beliefs related to the roles of skill and chance can be evaluated within the

game session in which they manifest. In online poker, erroneous beliefs related to the

integrity of the online poker game (other player’s practices, whether the website is

rigged, etc.), which tend to be a motivator to chase losses and continue playing,

should be explored in cognitive restructuring. Supporting gamblers in their

interpretation of game situations could also be an interesting option for restructuring

erroneous beliefs.

Study’s strengths and limitations

The main strength of the present study is that the erroneous beliefs were expressed

in real time by the participants as they are playing. Those beliefs, because of this

fact, can be considered ‘‘ hot’’ beliefs. This term refers to the way players react to

events in the context of a gambling activity (David et al., 2002; Smith et al., 1993;

Simon et al., 2015).

The study also has several limitations that should be considered. Despite the depth of

information gathered in this study, the intrusive nature of the thinking aloud method

(Dickerson & O’Connor, 2006) could have inﬂuenced the results. Indeed, the ﬁ ndings

147

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

depended on participants’ ease at verbalizing their thoughts and their capacity to do

so while playing (Delfabbro & Winefeld, 2000). Certain verbalizations were limited

to description s of behaviours during the game rather than explanations of the causes

that preceded or justiﬁed them (Walker, 1992) and thus, were of little relevance for

analysis. The administration of instruments via telephone is also a notable limitation

to the study since it opened the possibility of bias in the answers reported by the

participants. In addition, conclusions are limited by the challenge to establish a

consistent gambling experience across participants. Indeed, the individual choices

inevitably modiﬁed the experience and could have altered verbal reports. Moreover,

the number of game situations analyzed was limited, and the hands selected for

analysis occurred at the beginning of the tournament. It is possible that, as

the tournament progressed and the related emotions intensiﬁed, the end of the

tournament may have constituted a relevant game sequence to analyze for the

presence of erroneous beliefs.

A thematic analysis method also involves the risk of missing potential nuances or

misinterpreting data. As with the subjective and reﬂexive nature of this method, the

analyzed data therefore relied on the authors’ choices and interpretations, which is a

potential limit given the inﬂuence it has on the outcomes of the study if not carried

out properly. Nevertheless, this method was chosen given the ﬂexibility it allows and

its ove rall ease of use with large data sets.

Participants were recruited between February 10 and September 8, 2010. Since the

recruitment took place more than 10 years ago, this limitation must be considered

when interpreting the results. Even if the division of players in three distinct groups

allowed comparison despite small numbers, the sample of participants recruited for

each group (n=10), does not adequately allow generalization. Nevertheless, given the

frequency of erroneous beliefs observed in the present study, there is still a high

probability that similar cognitive distortions take place in many other Texas

Hold’em online poker players. Finally, despite the variety of recruitment techniques

used, an insufﬁcient number of pathological gamblers (endorsing ﬁve or more criteria

on the NODS) were recruited. The results of the present study therefore only apply to

gamblers who present subclinical levels of gambling problems.

Conclusion

The results of this study support the signiﬁcance of erroneous beliefs in gamblers who

play online poker, whether they have a gambling problem or not. The ﬁndings

showed that at-risk and/or problem gamblers who play online poker tend to believe

that their personal skill largely inﬂuences the game’s outcome, such that the role of

chance is denied. Doubts about the integrity of the online game, a preoccupation that

has been documented in previous studies, was one of the erroneous beliefs speciﬁc to

online poker demonstrated by these groups. The results of the present study support

the implementation of protection measures for poker players so that they can play on

websites that they trust. Moreover, pairing the erroneous beliefs emphasized in this

study with items in questionnaires designed to evaluate these cognitions in poker

148

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

players allowed us to suggest new items that consider chance and skill, online

practice, and slang used by poker players.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (4th ed., text rev.) (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (5th ed.) (DSM-5). Washington, DC: Author. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.

books.9780890425596

Andrade, E. B., & Iyer, G. (2007). Dynamic inconsistencies in gambling and the role

of feelings. Experimental Social Science Laboratory (Xlab). Experimental Social

Science Laboratory (Xlab). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0fx6729k

Baboushkin, H. R., Hardoon, K. K., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2001).

Underlying cognitions in gambling behavior among university students. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1409–1430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-

1816.2001.tb02680.x

Baribeau, C. (2010). L’entretien de groupe: Considérations théoriques et

méthodologiques. Recherches Qualitatives, 29(1), 28–49.

Barrault, S. (2012). Étude des distorsions cognitives, des troubles anxiodépressifs et de

la personnalité chez des joueurs pathologiques en ligne et hors ligne: Particularités des

joueurs de poker [École doctorale Cognition, comportement, conduites humaines]

[Doctoral thesis Université Paris Descartes]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/

40125983.pdf

Barrault, S., & Varescon, I. (2012). Distorsions cognitives et pratique de jeu de

hasard et d’argent: État de la question. Psychologie franc¸aise, 57(1), 17–29. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2012.01.002

Barrault, S., & Varescon, I. (2013). Cognitive distortions, anxiety, and depression

among regular and pathological gambling online poker players. Cyberpsychology,

Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(3), 183–188. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/

10.1089/cyber.2012.0150

Barrault, S., & Varescon, I. (2015). Le poker: Pratiques normales et pathologiques.

Psychotropes, 21, 37–52. https://www.cairn.info/revue-psychotropes-2015-2-page-37.

htm

Benhsaïn, K., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). Knowledge in statistics and erroneous

perceptions in gambling. Gambling Research, 16, 25–31.

149

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Berthet, V. (2010). Best hand wins: How poker is governed by chance. Chance, 23(3),

34– 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00144-010-0046-6

Binde, P. (20 11). What are the most harmful forms of gambling? Analyzing problem

gambling prevalence surveys. CEFOS Working Paper, 12,1–27. http://hdl.handle.

net/2077/26165

Bjerg, O. (2010). Problem gambling in poker: Money, rationality and control in a

skill-based social game. International Gambling Studies, 10(3), 239–254. https://doi.

org/10.1080/14459795.2010.520330

Bonnaire, C., & Barrault, S. (2018). Are online poker problem gamblers sensation

seekers? Psychiatry Research, 264, 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.

03.024

Bonneau, M., & Turgeon, G. (2010). Représenta tions, traje ctoires et habitudes de jeu

chez les joueurs de poker de 16 à 25 ans. Final report presented to Montreal’s

direction of public health. https://www.fss.ulaval.ca/sites/fss.ulaval.ca/ﬁles/fss/

sociologie/bonneau-20turgeon.pdf

Bouju, G., Grall-Bronnec, M., Quistrebert-Davanne, V., Hardouin, J.-B., & Vénisse,

J.-L. (2013). Texas Hold’em poker: A qualitative analysis of gamblers’ perceptions.

Journal of Gambling Issues, 28,1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2013.28.4

Bouju, G., Hardouin, J. B., & Groupe Jeu. (2013, Novembre ). Les joueurs de poker:

un proﬁl différent des autres joueurs ? Symposium présenté au 5ème congrès Franc¸ais

de Psychiatrie, Nice. European Psychiatry, 28, Supplement 6.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Breen, R. B., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). ‘‘ Chasing’’ in gambling behavior:

Personality and cognitive determinants. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(6),

1097–1111.

Brochu, P., Sévigny, S., & Giroux. I. (2015). Raisons de jouer, émotions et

perceptions relatives au hasard et à l’habileté de joueurs pratiquant le poker Texas

Hold’em en ligne. Journal of Gambling Issues, 31, 78–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.4309/

jgi.2015.31.7

Browne, B. R. (1989). Going on tilt: Frequent poker players and control. Journal of

Gambling Behavior, 5(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01022134

Bücker, L., Westermann, S., Kühn, S., & Moritz, S. (2019). A self-guided Internet-

based intervention for individuals with gambling problems: Study protocol for a

randomized controlled trial. Trials,20(74).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3176-z

150

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Caron, A., & Ladouceur, R. (2003). Erroneous verbalizations and risk taking at

video lotteries. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1348/

000712603321661877

Croson, R., Fishman, P., & Pope, D. G. (2008). Poker superstars: Skill or luck?

Similarities between golf—thought to be a game of skill—and poker. Chance,21.

https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Final_CHANCE.pdf

Dance, G. (2011, March 13). Poker bots invade online gambling. The New York

Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/science/14poker.html?_r=0

David, D., Schnur, J., & Belloiu, A. (2002). Another search for the ‘‘ hot’’ cognitions:

Appraisal, irrational beliefs, attributions, and their relation to emotion. Journal of

Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 20(2), 93–31. https://doi.org/

10.1023/A:1019876601693

Dedonno, M. A., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). Poker is a skill. Gaming Law Review,

12(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1089/glr.2008.12105

Delfabbro, P. H., Winefeld, A. H. (2000). Predictors of irrational thinking in regular

slot machine gamblers. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,

134(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980009600854

Dickerson, M., & O’Connor, J. (2006). Gambling as an addictive behaviour: Impaired

control, harm minimisation, treatment and prevention. Cambridge Universi ty Press.

Dreef, M., Borm, P., & Van der Genugten, B. (2003). On strategy and relative skill in

poker. International Game Theory Review, 5(2), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1142/

S021919890300091X

Duersh, P., Lambrecht, M., & Oechssler, J. (2020). Measuring skill and chance in

games. European Economic Review, 127(C). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.

2020.103472

Dufour, M., Brunelle, N., & Roy, E. (2015). Are poker players all the same? Latent

class analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(2), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10899-013-9429-y

Ejova, A., & Ohtsuka, K. (2019). Erroneous gambling-related beliefs emerge from

broader beliefs during problem-solving: A critical review and classiﬁ cation scheme.

Thinking and reasoning. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/

13546783.2019.1590233

Fiedler, I. C., & Rock, J. P. (2009). Quantifying skill in games: Theory and empirical

evidence for poker. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 13(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/

10.1089/glre.2008.13106

151

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Fortune, E. E., & Goodie, A. S. (2012). Cognitive distortions as a component and

treatment focus of pathological gambling: A review. Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors, 26(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026422

Gaboury, A., & Ladouceur, R. (1989). Erroneous perceptions and gambling. Journal

of Social Behavior and Personality, 4(4), 411–420.

Gerstein, D., Hoffmann, J., Larison, C., Engelman, L., Murphy, S., Palmer, A.,

Chuchro, L., Toce, M., Johnson, R., Buie, T., & Hill, M. A. (1999). Gambling impact

and behavior study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.

National Opinion Research Center.

Goodie, A. S., & Fortune, E. E. (2013). Measuring cognitive distortions in

pathological gambling: Review and meta-analyses. Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors, 27(3), 730–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031892

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9203-7

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 & Behavior, 12(2), 199–202. https://

doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0196

Hayes, A., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability

measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1 (1), 77– 89. https://

doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664

International Gaming Research Unit. (2007). The Global Online Gambling Report:

An explora tory investigation into the attitudes and behaviours of Internet casino and

poker players. Report for eCOGRA (e-Commerce and Online Gaming Regulation

and Assurance), International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham.

Jacobsen, L. H., Knudsen, A. K., Krogh, E., Pallesen, S., & Molde, H. (2007).

An overview of cognitive mechanisms in pathological gambling. Nordic Psychology,

59(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276.59.4.347

Jacques, C. (2000). Traduction et adaptation du NORC DSM Screen for Gambling

Problem (NODS). [Unpublished manuscript]. Université Laval.

Javarone, M. A. (2015). Poker as a skill game: Rational versus irrational behaviors.

Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 3(3). https://doi.org/

10.1088/1742-5468/2015/03/P03018

152

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A., & Maccallum, F. (2004). Superstitious beliefs in

gambling among problem and non problem gamblers: Preliminary data. Journal of

Gambling Studies 20(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:

JOGS.0000022308.27774.2b

Kairouz, S., Nadeau, L., & Robillard, C. (2014). Enquête Enhjeu-Québec: Portrait du

jeu au Québec: Prévalence, incidence et trajectoires sur quatre ans. Report prepared

for the Fonds de recherche sur la société et la cultu re, Montréal, Canad a. https://

lejeudoitresterunjeu.lotoquebec.com/dam/jcr:7182870e-c223-4d1b-8858-

7fda6d26e4c5/enquete-enhjeu-quebec-avril2014.pdf

Kairouz, S. Paradis, C, & Monson, E. (2016). Gender, gambling settings and

gambling behaviors among undergraduate poker players. International Gambling

Studies, 16(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2016.1147590

KGC (2008, January 11). In the matter of Absolute Poker. Investigation regarding

complaints of cheating. Decision. Kahnawá:ke Gaming Commission. http://www.

gamingcommission.ca/news/pr01112008a.pdf

KGC (2008, September 29). Kahnawa:ke Gaming Commission imposes sanctions

on Ultimate Bet with regard to cheating incidents. Kahnawá:ke Gaming Commission.

http://www.gamingcommission.ca/news/pr09282008a.pdf

King, S. M., & Whelan, J. P. (2020). Gambling and alcohol problems during the

college years: Personality, physical and emotional health and gambling beliefs. Issues

in Mental Health Nursing, 41(12), 1095–1103. https://doi.org/10.1080/

01612840.2020.1804019

Labrador, M., Labrador, F. J., Crespo, M., Echeburúa, E., & Becoña, E. (2020).

Cognitive distortions in gamblers and non-gamblers of a representative Spanish

sample. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-

019-09870-z

Ladd, G. T., & Petry, N. M. (2002). Disordered gambling among university-based

medical and dental patients: A focus on Internet gambling. Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors, 16, 76–79. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-164X.16.1.76

Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A., Dumont, M., & Rochette, P. (1988). Gambling:

Relationship between the frequency of wins and irrational thinking. The Journal of

Psychology, 122 , 409–414.

Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Chevalier, S., Sévigny, S., & Hamel, D. (2005).

Prevalence of pathological gambling in Quebec in 2002. Canadian Journal of

Psychiatry, 50, 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370505000804

153

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Ladouceur, R., & Sévigny, S. (2003). Video lottery terminal warning messages and

the persistence to gamble. Gambling Research, 15, 45–50.

Lambos, C., & Delfabbro, P. (2007). Numerical reasoning ability and irrational

beliefs in problem gambling. International Gambling Studies, 7, 157–171. https://doi.

org/10.1080/14459790701387428

Lévesque. D. (2017). Personnalité, symptômes anxio-dépressifs et distorsions

cognitives: Comparaison de joueurs de poker et de joueurs d’appareils de loterie vidéo

[Doctoral thesis]. Université Laval. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11794/28015

Lévesque, D., Sévigny, S., Giroux, I., & Jacques, C. (2018). Psychological

vulnerability and problem gambling: The mediational role of cognitive distortions.

Journal of Gambling Studies, 34, 807–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9740-0.

Mathieu, S., Barrault, S., Brunault, P., & Varescon, I. (2018). Gambling motives:

Do they explain cognitive distortions in male poker gamblers? Journal of Gambling

Studies, 34, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9700-8

McMullan, J. L. (2012). Cyber fraud, online poker, and order-maintenance in virtual

worlds. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 16(3), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1089/

glre.2012.1636

Mestre-Bach, G., Steward, T., Balodis, I. M., Vintró-Alcaraz, C., Granero, R.,

Fernández-Aranda, F., Menchón, J. M., Jiménez-Murcia, S., & Potenza, M. N.

(2020). A compari son of gambling-related cognitions and behaviors in gamblers

from the United States and Spain. Journal of Gambling Studies, 37(1), 319–333.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09971-0

Meyer, G., von Meduna, M., Brosowski, T., & Hayer, T. (2013). Is poker a game of

skill or chance? A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(3), 535–

550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9327-8

Mitrovic, D. V., & Brown, J. (2009). Poker mania and problem gambling: A study of

distorted cognitions, motivation and alexithymia. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(4),

489–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-009-9140-1

Moreau, A. (2016). Le tilt au poker en ligne: Description, mesure et lien avec le jeu

excessif [Doctoral Dissertation]. Université Toulouse le Mirail.

Moreau, A., Chabrol, H., Chauchard, E. (2016). Psychopathology of online poker

players: Review of literature. Journal of Behavioral Addictions 5(2), 155– 168. https://

doi.org/10.1556/2006.5.2016.035

154

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Moreau, A., Chauchard, E., Sévigny, S., & Giroux, I. (2020a). Tilt in online poker:

Loss of control and gambling disorder. International Journal of Environmental

Research and Public Health, 17(14), 5013. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145013

Moreau, A., Sévigny, S., Giroux, I., & Chauchard, E. (2020b). Ability to

discriminate online poker tilt episodes: A new way to prevent excessive gambling?

Journal of Gambling Studies, 36(2), 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-

09903-7

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publishing.

Palomäki, J., Laakasuo, M., Ultan Cowley, B., & Lappi, O. (2020). Poker as a

domain of expertise. Journal of Expertise, 3(2). https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/340342482_Poker_as_a_Domain_of_Expertise

Palomäki, J., Laakasuo, M., & Salmela, M. (2013) ‘‘ This is just so unfair!’’ :

A qualitative analysis of loss-in duced emotions and tilting in on-line poker.

International Gambling Studies, 13(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/

14459795.2013.780631

Palomäki, J., Laakasuo, M., & Salmela, M. (2014). Losing more by losing it: Poker

experience, sensitivity to losses and tilting severity. Journal of Gambling Studies,

30(1), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9339-4

Petry, N. M. (2005). Terminology, prevalence rates, and types of gambling. In N. M.

Petry (Ed.), Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity, and treatment (pp. 9–33).

American Psychological Association.

Phillips, J. G., Ogeil, R., Chow, Y.-W., & Blaszczynski, B. (2012). Gambling

involvement and increased risk of gambling problems. Journal of Gambling Studies,

29(4), 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9325-x

Poker Players Research Limited (2010). Topline trends poker 2010. http://www.

pokerplayersresearch.com/Data.aspx

Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2004). The gambling related cognition scale (GRCS):

Development, conﬁrmatory factor validation and psychometric properties.

Addiction, 99(6), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00753. x

Schoenberg, F. P. (2018). Is poker a game of luck or skill? Signiﬁcance, 15(6), 30 –33.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01212.x

Sévigny, S., & Ladouceur, R. (2003). Gamblers’ irrational thinking about chance

events: The ‘‘ double switching’’ concept. International Gambling Studies, 3(2),

149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356347032000142261

155

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Sévigny, S., Ladouceur, R., Dufour, J., & Lalande, D. (2008, May ). Poker par

Internet: Le résultat dépend-il principalement du hasard? Communication presented

during the 76th ACFAS conference, Québec.

Shaffer, H. J., & Hall, M. N. (1996). Estimating the prevalence of adolescent

gambling disorders: A quantitative synthesis and guide toward standard gambling

nomenclature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/

BF01539174

Simon, D., Stenstrom, D. M., & Read, S. J. (2015). The coherence effect: Blending

cold and hot cognition s. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3),

369–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000029

Sirola, A., Kaakinen, M., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Excessive gambling and online

gambling communities. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34(4), 1313–1325. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s10899-018-9772-0

Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In search of

the ‘‘ hot’’ cognitions: Attributions, appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 916–929.

Smith, I., & Giroux, I. (2019). L’illusion de contrôle liée au jeu auprès

d’universitaires: Le bénéﬁce du doute? / The illusion of Control in gambling among

university students: The bene ﬁt of the doubt? Journal of Gambling Issues, 42,

107–129. https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2019.42.6

SOU (2008). Svenska Spels nätpoker: En utvärdering. Stokholm: Statens offentliga

utredningar 36. http://data.riksdagen.se/dokument/GWB336

Steenbergh, T. A., Meyers, A. W., May, R. K., & Whelan, J. P. (2002). Development

and validation of the gamblers’ beliefs questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors, 16(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.16.2.143

Suurvali, H., Hodgins, D., Toneatto, T., Cunningham, J. (2008). Treatment seeking

among Ontario problem gamblers: Results of a population survey. Psychiatric

Services, 59 (11), 1343 –1346. http://dx.doi.org.access.bibl.ulaval.ca/10.1176/appi.

ps.59.11.1343

Toneatto, T. (1999). Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. Substance

Use and Misuse, 34(11), 1593–1604. http://dx.doi.org.access.bibl.ulaval.ca/10.3109/

10826089909039417

Toneatto, T., Blitz-Miller, T., Calderwood, K., Dragonetti, R., & Tsanos, A. (1997).

Cognitive distortions on heavy gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(3),

253–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024983300428

156

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER

Tryggvesson, K. (2007). Nätpokerspelandet i Sverige: Omfattning, utveckling och

karaktär 2006 . SoRAD Forskningsrapport nr. 43. Stockholm: SoRAD.

Turner, N. E. (2011). Volatility, house edge and prize struct ure of gambling games.

Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(4), 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-011-

9238-0

Turner, N. E., & Fritz, B. (2001). The effect of skilled gamblers on the success of less

skilled gamblers. Journal of Gambling Issues, 5. https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2001.5.10

Walker, M. B. (1992). Irrational thinking among slot machine players. Journal of

Gambling Studies, 8(3), 245–261.

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(3), 354–361. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9944

Wood, R., & Williams, R. (2011). A comparative proﬁle of the Internet gambler:

Demographic characteristics, game play patterns, and problem gambling status. New

Media & Society, 13(7), 1123–1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810397650

*******

Submitted July 3, 2020; accepted November 17, 2021. This article was peer reviewed.

All URLs were available at the time of submission.

For correspondence: Isabelle Giroux, Ph.D., École de psychologie, Université Laval,

2325, allée des Bibliothèques, Quebec, QC, Canada, G1V 0A6.

E-mail: isabelle.giro[email protected]

Competing interests: None declared (all authors).

Ethics approval: This study, ‘‘ Perceptions des joueurs de poker et problèmes de jeu,’’

was approved by Laval University’s research ethics committee on January 26, 2010

(approval # 2009-032 A-1).

Acknowledgements/Funding Source(s): The study was funded by Fonds de la

prévention et du traitement du jeu de l’Université Laval, the Fonds de recherche

québécois–Société et culture (FRQ– SC) and the Ministère de la Santé et des Services

sociaux (MSSS) du Québec. First author was funded by the FRQ – SC) and the Centre

Dollard-Cormier, Institut universitaire sur les dépendances. Funders had no role in the

study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or

the decision to submit the paper for publication.

157

ERRONEOUS BELIEFS WHILE PLAYING ONLINE POKER