Betting Decision Under Break-Streak Pattern: Evidence from Casino Gaming

Overview

Journal J Gambl Stud

Date 2015 May 14

PMID 25967106

Citations 1

Authors

Lawrence Hoc Nang Fong

Amy Siu Ian So

Rob Law

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Cognitive bias is prevalent among gamblers, especially those with gambling problems. Grounded in the heuristics theories, this study contributes to the literature by examining a cognitive bias triggered by the break streak pattern in the casino setting. We postulate that gamblers tend to bet on the latest outcome when there is a break-streak pattern. Moreover, three determinants of the betting decision under break-streak pattern, including the streak length of the alternative outcome, the frequency of the latest outcome, and gender, were identified and examined in this study. A non-participatory observational study was conducted among the Cussec gamblers in a casino in Macao. An analysis of 1229 bets confirms our postulation, particularly when the streak of the alternative outcome is long, the latest outcome is frequent, and the gamblers are females. The findings provide meaningful implications for casino management and public policymakers regarding the minimization of gambling harm.

Citing Articles

Scent-driven Selective Attention on Gambling Outcome: Implications for Responsible Gambling.

Fong L, Nong S, Wu A, Fong D J Gambl Stud. 2024; 40(4):1823-1838.

PMID: 39126590 DOI: 10.1007/s10899-024-10346-y.

References

Toneatto T . Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. Subst Use Misuse. 1999; 34(11):1593-604. DOI: 10.3109/10826089909039417. View

Johansson A, Grant J, Kim S, Odlaug B, Gotestam K . Risk factors for problematic gambling: a critical literature review. J Gambl Stud. 2008; 25(1):67-92. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-008-9088-6. View

Tang C, Wu A . Gambling-related cognitive biases and pathological gambling among youths, young adults, and mature adults in Chinese societies. J Gambl Stud. 2011; 28(1):139-54. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-011-9249-x. View

Joukhador J, Maccallum F, Blaszczynski A . Differences in cognitive distortions between problem and social gamblers. Psychol Rep. 2003; 92(3 Pt 2):1203-14. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.2003.92.3c.1203. View

Raylu N, Oei T . Pathological gambling. A comprehensive review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2002; 22(7):1009-61. DOI: 10.1016/s0272-7358(02)00101-0. View

Carlbring P, Degerman N, Jonsson J, Andersson G . Internet-based treatment of pathological gambling with a three-year follow-up. Cogn Behav Ther. 2012; 41(4):321-34. PMC: 3516818. DOI: 10.1080/16506073.2012.689323. View

Myrseth H, Brunborg G, Eidem M . Differences in cognitive distortions between pathological and non-pathological gamblers with preferences for chance or skill games. J Gambl Stud. 2010; 26(4):561-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-010-9180-6. View

Homan R, Bulmer M . The ethics of covert methods. Br J Sociol. 1980; 31(1):46-65. View

Fortune E, Goodie A . Cognitive distortions as a component and treatment focus of pathological gambling: a review. Psychol Addict Behav. 2011; 26(2):298-310. DOI: 10.1037/a0026422. View

10.

Toneatto T, Ladoceur R . Treatment of pathological gambling: a critical review of the literature. Psychol Addict Behav. 2003; 17(4):284-92. DOI: 10.1037/0893-164X.17.4.284. View

11.

Gooding P, Tarrier N . A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioural interventions to reduce problem gambling: hedging our bets?. Behav Res Ther. 2009; 47(7):592-607. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.04.002. View

12.

Tversky A, Kahneman D . Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. View

13.

Delfabbro P . The stubborn logic of regular gamblers: obstacles and dilemmas in cognitive gambling research. J Gambl Stud. 2004; 20(1):1-21. DOI: 10.1023/B:JOGS.0000016701.17146.d0. View

14.

Fong L, Law R, Lam D . An examination of factors driving chinese gamblers' fallacy bias. J Gambl Stud. 2013; 30(3):757-70. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-013-9390-9. View

15.

Burns B, Corpus B . Randomness and inductions from streaks: "gambler's fallacy" versus "hot hand". Psychon Bull Rev. 2004; 11(1):179-84. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206480. View

16.

Nowak D, Aloe A . The prevalence of pathological gambling among college students: a meta-analytic synthesis, 2005-2013. J Gambl Stud. 2013; 30(4):819-43. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-013-9399-0. View

17.

Welte J, Barnes G, Tidwell M, Hoffman J . The prevalence of problem gambling among U.S. adolescents and young adults: results from a national survey. J Gambl Stud. 2007; 24(2):119-33. PMC: 4405098. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-007-9086-0. View

18.

Ayton P, Fischer I . The hot hand fallacy and the gambler's fallacy: two faces of subjective randomness?. Mem Cognit. 2005; 32(8):1369-78. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206327. View

19.

Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Shaffer H . A science-based framework for responsible gambling: the Reno model. J Gambl Stud. 2004; 20(3):301-17. DOI: 10.1023/B:JOGS.0000040281.49444.e2. View

20.

Afifi T, Cox B, Martens P, Sareen J, Enns M . Demographic and social variables associated with problem gambling among men and women in Canada. Psychiatry Res. 2010; 178(2):395-400. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2009.10.003. View