Psych survey - Online poker players wanted!!

LionelNashe

Hi folks,

I am a part-time psychology student and am doing a small study on the beliefs of online poker players regarding poker, gambling, skill and luck. I would much appreciate it if a few people could follow the link below to fill out the survey, which just takes a couple of minutes.

Its completely confidential and anonymous - it does not ask for any identifying details.

(The survey is hosted on surveymonkey.com, which is a site that hosts online surveys for academic and business users, and anyone else who wants to conduct a questionnaire.)

Here is the link to the survey:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=m_2bQ_2b4gHkYtEUafsvGNJ8lA_3d_3d

Please feel free to ask any questions on this thread or by emailing me at lionelnashe88@hotmail.com

If you find the survey interesting, then please spread the word.

Thanks.

fatguy

Linky broken?

LionelNashe

D'oh!! I pasted that broken link onto half a dozen forums.

Its fixed now , though. Thanks for pointing it out.

Lionel.

Lurker1977

Done, but some of the questions could do with being changed.

big_iain

done gl

OilBeefHooked2

Lurker1977 wrote: »

Done, but some of the questions could do with being changed.

+1

e.g. what do you enter for your monthly spend in the poker section on the last page when you have and maintain a bankroll online.

dK1NG

Done.

AdMMM

because all poker players lose.

Samba

david-k wrote: »

+1

e.g. what do you enter for your monthly spend in the poker section on the last page when you have and maintain a bankroll online.

You could enter your weekly rake averages.

zuutroy

Lot of Gambler's Fallacy questions. Everyone here will answer them the same. Better off going to th gambing forum where they're mosty idiots.

thedini

no offence but will anybody in the poker forum answer these 'incorrectly' unless they are taking the p***

super/sub

In the sections where it says how much did you spend and then how much did you win. If you invested, say, $1 and eventually came out with a net profit of $3... is the idea to put these 2 figures in each of these boxes respectively? Or is the spent box a kind way of saying lost and to be left blank if you're a winner, and vice versa?

LionelNashe

Whichever way you answer that question (i.e. whether you enter a figure in 1 box only or or you enter a figure in both boxes) that's fine - I will tidy up the data afterwards. Thanks for your help.

RoundTower

thedini wrote: »

no offence but will anybody in the poker forum answer these 'incorrectly' unless they are taking the p***

I wasn't sure on the slots one. Obviously you can be a winning player at video poker but a lot of people don't count that as "slots". However there are also progressive slots where it's also possible to be a winner, especially if you include comps. So I went for "yes you can win at slots but not at roulette or bingo" as the safe option.

Also there's an interesting dichotomy between "a typical month" and "an average month". For example I might lose $200 a month on average playing casino games, but 10 months out of 12 I don't play them at all so I put $0 for that one.

Also the one about choosing your own lottery numbers. Obviously you should choose combinations no one else has chosen to reduce the risk of sharing the jackpot. But does a shared win still count as a win, so picking random numbers is just as likely to "win" as picking good numbers which have better equity? I chose the safe side again and put "yes, it does matter".

The "positive attitude" question is also interesting. Someone with a positive attitude is likely to be more disciplined and less likely to go on tilt chasing their losses, so they are less likely to have a winning session? Not sure if that is what the OP is getting at.

20 different options for what stakes hold'em you play at but none of them mentions tournament poker or other forms of poker?

I'm still not sure of the answer to this one: "7. You go to a casino with $100 hoping to double your money. Which strategy gives you the best chance of
doubling your money? Betting all your money on a single bet
Betting small amounts of money on several different bets". Are we talking independent bets or not? Covering eighteen numbers on roulette would be pretty good way to do it, but playing BJ for 1/10 of your roll on each hand would be terrible.

However the survey isn't as bad as most other psych surveys aimed at online gamblers. I give it a B-.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

thedini

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I actually wouldn't know the answer off the top of my head to the question about whether you are more likely to scoop a jackpot on a slot machine if it has paid out recently or not. Because I have never played one and have no idea how they work!!

if it's anything like the poker machines then it is definitely less likely to pay out.

Slash/ED

david-k wrote: »

+1

e.g. what do you enter for your monthly spend in the poker section on the last page when you have and maintain a bankroll online.

Yeah is how much you spend every single buy in you have on a table you sit at online? Say I open 4 tables, I've 'spent' 4 buy ins no matter what and 1 more for every time I leave a table and open a new one? Add that up for a month and it'll be insane! For any regular online player that's going to come up with an absolutely ludicrous very misleading figure many many many many times more than how much they'd even have in their entire bankroll. And many many many more times than what a typical 'swing' for them at the level they play at would be. I just put 0 down, because it'd be very misleading if I could answer it honestly and also keeping track and getting an actual figure would be very hard.

TommyGunne

I thought that one of the most interesting ones was "A gambler goes to a casino and comes out a winner 75% of the time. How many times has he/she likely gone to the casino? 4, 100 or no difference" I'm afraid its a gambler's fallacy question but it is open to interpretation. I would imagine that 4 would be more likely as few people maintain a 75% winning session % over a significant sample. I'm confused over this one cos I've a few arguments and counterarguments going in my head....

Also the doubling your money question is a bit ambiguous. From the wording of the question I assume it refers to house games? Cos then its all on one bet, but if its in a game where you do have an edge its a lot of small bets???? So which is it? I assume for most people they don't have an edge in anything so I went with that one.

Slash/ED

I said 4 in that one assuming it meant -EV house games, even if you just took the average person who goes to casinos (everyone included, just house game players, players who play the house and poker but suck/win at poker, or just poker players winners or losers) on average 75% win-rate is obviously unrealistic for the average of all people going in so I picked the smaller sample.

eagle eye

The slot machine question is flawed. The fact is that it could just as easily be one as the other depending on how busy it was. They pay out when the right amount of money has been put into them and not beforehand.

Mellor

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I actually wouldn't know the answer off the top of my head to the question about whether you are more likely to scoop a jackpot on a slot machine if it has paid out recently or not. Because I have never played one and have no idea how they work!!

Its less likely to pay out if it has recently paid out. At least it is in all regulated casinos (Vegas etc) This is there to ensure that it pays out at least X% of the time.
I have a feeling that the OP is unaware of this

RoundTower

Mellor wrote: »

Its less likely to pay out if it has recently paid out. At least it is in all regulated casinos (Vegas etc) This is there to ensure that it pays out at least X% of the time.
I have a feeling that the OP is unaware of this

In Vegas, every slot machine must be approved by the Nevada Gaming Commission. The NGC licenses only "Class III" slot machines. On these machines, every play must be independent, and you are equally likely to hit a jackpot on a machine that has just hit as on one which has not hit in ten years.

This is to ensure that on average, the machines pay out X% of the time.

I have a feeling that Mellor is unaware of this.

Zab

TommyGunne wrote: »

I thought that one of the most interesting ones was "A gambler goes to a casino and comes out a winner 75% of the time. How many times has he/she likely gone to the casino? 4, 100 or no difference" I'm afraid its a gambler's fallacy question but it is open to interpretation. I would imagine that 4 would be more likely as few people maintain a 75% winning session % over a significant sample. I'm confused over this one cos I've a few arguments and counterarguments going in my head....

Mmm, the answer to this is 4 and it's not at all close!

Not too sure about the questionnaire. It asked the same thing a few times in the middle, and started to annoy me around there. Also, I don't know anything about slots or bingo, and there was no "I don't know" option. I assumed slots payed out the jackpot a static % of the time, but I was aware that this was assumption on my part. I also assumed there's no +EV way to play bingo. Last page made no sense for poker at all.

Mellor

RoundTower wrote: »

In Vegas, every slot machine must be approved by the Nevada Gaming Commission. The NGC licenses only "Class III" slot machines. On these machines, every play must be independent, and you are equally likely to hit a jackpot on a machine that has just hit as on one which has not hit in ten years.

You must be right so, I remember reading about a NGC employee who was able to scam the slots via his knowledge/monitoring of the slot machine software. Assume this was the reason, obv not

hotspur

Just to to clarify on the slot machine question, they operate differently in America than in this part of the world. In America they are the product of a RNG which operates independently of amount paid in, but over here and in Britain we have slots which do pay out x amount of what they take in so they are affected by recent payouts.

Out of interest what did other people answer for the rather muddled variance question about how many hands it would take to judge the more skilled player?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Zab

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I assumed that you would be unable to see any details of how the players bet through the hands, what cards that were shown down and which hands were won without showdown. Instead, the information would be presented to you as follows:

X, 100 / Y, 100
X, 110 / Y, 90 after 10 hands
X, 107 / Y, 93 after 50 hands

etc, etc.

If that's the case then I totally misunderstood/misread the question.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Hectorjelly

I think it was a thread like this that first introduced us to hotspur

Ste05

In that chipstack question I took it to mean you could see the fluctuations in the 2 guys stacks both during the hands (i.e. the amount he's betting on each street) as well as before and after.

So I decided you'd be able to discern the VPiP of each and get a general idea about their limping/Open raising etc... if one guys stack is going down by 20 a hand PF alot, and the other guys is going down by 60 a hand every few hands, and then normally going down by about 1.5 to 2 times that amount... etc. etc.

So I didn't think it'd take all that long before you'd be able to see who the fish is on PF bet sizing alone....

Zab

Okay, that's pretty clear, and I misread it at the time. However, I'd assume now that you can see the betting during the hand (or at least the bets disappearing from the stacks).