Gambling
The almost-winning addiction
Near misses could heighten gambling addiction
May 6th 2010 | From The Economist print edition


Almost got the jackpot there
IT IS not the thrill of winning, but the thrill of almost winning that sets a problem gambler apart from those who just fancy a flutter. A strong reaction in the brain in response to “near misses” is correlated with a greater tendency to compulsive gambling, according to new research.

Gambling touches almost everyone, from friends playing online poker to grannies buying lotto tickets. For many it is just good fun, but for some it becomes a debilitating addiction which wrecks lives: they need bigger wins to satisfy their craving, and when forced to stop they suffer withdrawal symptoms.

Henry Chase of the University of Nottingham and Luke Clark of the University of Cambridge, are interested in the cognitive complexities of gamblers. For instance, gamblers often believe that games like roulette, or picking lottery numbers, involve some degree of skill, even though they do not. In games where skill does matter, such as football, a near miss like kicking a ball into the goalpost can rightly be associated with almost scoring a goal. So assigning value to an almost-goal makes some sense. But in games of chance, near misses are meaningless. They say nothing about the future likelihood of winning.

Yet that is not the way many people think about it.

[Edited for compliance]

They invited 20 volunteers, two of whom were women, to play a kind of slot machine while a functional magnetic-resonance imaging scanner examined their brain activity. These machines show certain parts of the brain “lighting up” with increased blood flow as they become active.

The volunteers all enjoyed some gambling, ranging from off-course betting on race horses and football matches to playing slot machines, scratch cards and lotteries. All but one volunteer—who had been abstinent for a year—gambled at least once a week. Bets ranged from five people who routinely spent £10-100 ($15-150) a day on gambling and two who were willing to drop over £10,000. Perhaps not surprisingly, 13 of the volunteers would have been considered to have an excessive gambling habit on conventional tests.

The game was simple: when an icon on the left-hand reel lined up with the same icon on a right-hand one, the volunteer won a cash prize of 50 pence (75 cents). Sometimes the volunteers could pick the left-hand icon. At other times it was selected for them. A near miss came with the agonising deceleration of the right-hand reel so that something like a cowboy boot, an anchor or a banana eventually stopped within a space or two of lining up with a matching icon on the left. In fact, the results were rigged and all participants got 30 wins, 60 near misses and 90 clear misses.

The researchers found that those who scored highest in gambling severity also showed the most activity in the midbrain area in response to near misses. (They did not differ in their response to real wins, however.) This area of the brain is of interest to researchers because it is where dopamine, a neurotransmitter, is produced. Dopamine has been implicated in other addiction studies. It could be the near misses that enhance dopamine transmission in gamblers who suffer the most severe problems, the study suggests. Which means it might be possible to find treatments that reduce dopamine transmission in the brain to take some of the compulsion out of gambling.
http://www.economist.com/...d=16056339

My brother-in-law plays the lottery every week, and every week talks about the winning numbers "pattern" he sees emerging each week. His latest observation was that all the winning numbers were two-digit numbers. Well, congratulations on that earth-shattering piece of insight, considering that the lottery has 52 numbered balls (1 through 52), therefore 43 of the 52 balls contain numbers that have TWO DIGITS! I've also told people before that my chances of winning with picks of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are just as good as their chances with any "lucky number" picks they want to make. They don't believe me.

Poiple said:

I don't think I believe you either. You are matching a specific set of numerals, against a random set which is also a specific set of numerals. ANY random numeral set is going to come up before your specific set. If you are matching 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 against, say, 8,14,21,19,33 and 50, there has to be a higher probability that the second set (8,14,21, 19, 33 and 50) will appear, even randomly, before a specific connected sequence of numerals will appear out of a random pull. Simply put, it's harder to draw 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 in sequence with a random pull than a random set of numerals.

SUPRMAN said:

From http://www.lottery.co.uk/...umbers.asp

Consecutive Numbers

Two sets of three consecutive numbers appeared when the Lotto draw was held on Saturday 23 January, 2008. The lottery results were 24, 25, 26, 38, 39, 40, and anyone who makes a habit of entering consecutive sequences would have been encouraged by these numbers even if they didn’t happen to win.

Some National Lottery players might think that the odds of having consecutive numbers drawn are bigger than the odds of having so-called unconnected numbers, but that isn’t the case. The odds of any combination of numbers being drawn in the Lotto game are always 1 in 13,983,816, and a sequence like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is therefore just as likely as any other.

Poiple said:

Of course, because it is six numbers. But the sequence has to be harder than just any six random numbers. Your chances of winning the lottery don't change but your chance of seeing six sequential numbers is less than simply winning.

SUPRMAN said:

there actually is a skill in knowing how to play roulette conservatively and not lose all your money right away, but unfortunately there's not a skill that will help you win

Gambling is entertainment, that's what you pay for. Occasionally you win a little and it's thrilling, as is the hope of winning, but you're always paying for it in the end

Unless maybe it's poker--direct competition with other gamblers as opposed to playing against the house

SUPRMAN said:[quote]

Poiple said:

Well, if you are betting ONLY that the winning lottery draw will be non-consecutive numbers, regardless of what those numbers are, then yes, you are correct. There are many many more possible draws that consist of non-consecutive numbers than consecutive, but that's not how the lottery is played. If so, 99% of those playing would win.

SUPRMAN said:

That's only because they are sequential to us. Fortune doesn't give a fuck about sequence and that's why the probability of getting six sequential numbers is just as high as the probability of getting any other six numbers, every single time.

Dave1992 said:

They are only sequential to us. Thanx

I remember hearing something like this, recently--that gamblers who had a problem actually were in it to lose, because that was when the real rush came.

It was like a survival instinct kicking in, but they of course ignore it & lose more money instead