Why do people post they're getting 9 out of 9? Anyone who plays poker seriously is getting at least 8 right - nothing to brag about.

I got 9/9 because the answers to his quiz were all correct

9/9 But its clear the person setting the quiz doesn't understand Advantage play.

Many games he thinks are not beatable are mathematically beatable under certain circumstances.

They might seem correct if one's gambling expertise is limited to poker.

Many thanks to the few hundred people who have done the study so far. Just bumping this thread as I will close the study out and share results in about another week's time.

This research has now been accepted for publication in a journal and so the final version can be read here:


Having a positive attitude or doing good deeds? An experimental investigation of poker players’ responses to the Gambling Fallacies Measure


The main thing going on in the study was there were 3 different versions of the very first question, and these were then associated with responses on the later nine questions. These questions were designed by other researchers, and like how some people have pointed out there are valid counterarguments about the correct interpretations of some of them.

In fact this whole study was based on a criticism I had around the question involving the words "having a positive attitude".

Many thanks for your participation.

Interesting stuff. I didn't even know this field existed.

I agree that "doing good deeds" is a better phrase than "having a good attitude." But I also think it only diminishes the problem, which is really with the second part of the question including games of skill. It seems like you want to ask questions like "does circumstance X change the probabilities for a gambler on games of chance?" i.e. you want to find out if people think irrelevant factors can overcome probability. But then you include games not driven entirely by chance.

While it's very obvious that your attitude can affect your outcomes in skill based gambling, it's less obvious that doing good deeds will affect your outcomes. But many people would say it does. Not nec because a karmic force will change the cards, but because you will be an all-around better functioning person.

For example, Joe is a great friend and family member and many people think he is honest and good. He has less conflict and stress in his life than a liar and cheater. He knows these people will be happy for him if he succeeds. He can turn to them for emotional and material support. When he won that big tourney, he used some of the score to pay off his brother's student loans. If he goes busto, he knows that brother will help him get back on his feet. Easy to see how Joe leading a good life makes him more likely to succeed in general, but especially in an uncertain profession like gambling.

Even if that's wrong, it's pretty plausible and not superstitious. But people could also hold the view that your good deeds magically change the cards to your favor, which is superstitious. There's no way to tell why they are answering that way.

The real problem I think--and this was true of several questions--is you need to stipulate that it is not a game of skill, and that the outcomes are driven entirely by chance. Avoid uncertainties like the fact that some slot machines are random and some aren't. Or, what makes a winning poker player or sports bettor (I assume nobody 100% knows that).

Why not just use specific and clear examples that rule out games of skill? Will a positive attitude make you more likely to win a fair coin toss? If you have spent a year doing good deeds, are you more likely to win at a fair roulette wheel than a person who has not? If a fair coin toss has come up heads 5x in a row.... etc.

tldr: the source of confusion seems to be lumping games of skill and chance together, just because people bet on them.

I didn't see this first time round and it would be good to have access to whichever version of the quiz you want to provide to see how I do and to evaluate the questions

A copy of the original survey is here:

https://bristolexppsych.eu.qualtrics...2CyEuGP3AVg1v0

The "correct" answers to the 9 scale questions are given at the end of the survey.

Yes I fully agree those questions would be better if they just mentioned specific luck-based casino games.

Your suggestions would help but I think any modified scale along these lines could still end up with the ceiling effect (where almost everyone from 2+2 answered at least near-perfect).

I have another piece of research which suggests a different approach:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...9.2023.2179997

These are interviews that we did with 19 all-time great online crushers. I would love to develop a scale which looks at aspects of their shared rational approach (e.g., learning from others, and only gambling in areas of relative expertise).

That last link is my personal favourite thing I've ever written on poker.

I did a search for the term 'Bayes' and found nothing in your research.

As someone who has been both a long-term professional gambler and a medium term advantage player, I find that somewhat surprising!

A single piece of research can only cover a limited number of topics.

This earlier paper has 40 references to the good Reverend

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...10027722000105

fair enough!