Auer Michael, Griffiths Mark D
Neccton Ltd, Office 404 Albany House, 324 Regent Street, London, W1B 3HH, UK,
J Gambl Stud. 2014 Dec;30(4):879-87. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9376-7.
Many recent studies of internet gambling-particularly those that have analysed behavioural tracking data-have used variables such 'bet size' and 'number of games played' as proxy measures for 'gambling intensity'. In this paper it is argued that the most stable and reliable measure for 'gambling intensity' is the 'theoretical loss' (a product of total bet size and house advantage). In the long run, the theoretical loss corresponds with the Gross Gaming Revenue generated by commercial gaming operators. For shorter periods of time, theoretical loss is the most stable measure of gambling intensity as it is not distorted by gamblers' occasional wins. Even for single bets, the theoretical loss reflects the amount a player is willing to risk. Using behavioural tracking data of 100,000 players who played online casino, lottery and/or poker games, this paper also demonstrates that bet size does not equate to or explain theoretical loss as it does not take into account the house advantage. This lack of accuracy is shown to be even more pronounced for gamblers who play a variety of games.
近期许多关于网络赌博的研究——尤其是那些分析行为追踪数据的研究——都将“赌注大小”和“游戏局数”等变量用作“赌博强度”的替代指标。本文认为,“赌博强度”最稳定、可靠的衡量指标是“理论损失”(总赌注大小与庄家优势的乘积)。从长远来看,理论损失与商业博彩运营商产生的毛博彩收入相对应。在较短时间段内,理论损失是赌博强度最稳定的衡量指标,因为它不会因赌徒偶尔的赢钱而扭曲。即使对于单次下注,理论损失也反映了玩家愿意承担的风险金额。利用10万名玩在线赌场、彩票和/或扑克游戏玩家的行为追踪数据,本文还表明,赌注大小并不等同于或解释理论损失,因为它没有考虑庄家优势。对于玩多种游戏的赌徒来说,这种准确性的缺乏表现得更为明显。