What’s this, a post about being a skilled ‘problem gambler’, surely a dichotomy of terms? However, there can be many misconceptions held by counsellors and therapists seeking to treat problem gamblers. One such misconception is to treat them all as mere ‘mug punters’, since in seeking to beat the house, they are seen to be as destined to fail. All can be viewed as degenerate gamblers that should essentially be told what to do when embarking on a course of treatment. There is often an absence of awareness in the type of gamblers that can actually exist, that some are professional and highly skilled, for example. With this approach, counsellors will typically apply reality testing techniques from the CBT handbook, or from the 12 Steps of Recovery, which aims to challenge the notion that their clients have any real skill in their gambling activities. This can mean being asked to divulge the amount which they have lost over their gambling career. Ascertaining a lifelong Profit and Loss (P&L) statement might, of course, be sometimes useful and is often the standard tactic used by treatment centres and problem gambling helplines. I witnessed this myself when I worked at Gamcare, the UK’s national charity for problem gambling. When this approach is standardised it potentially risks failing to develop real rapport with many problem gamblers, who are actually very skilled, and this approach can represent a significant emphatic failure. Such people do not want to be treated in such a dismissive manner and might resent the lack of real intention to gain a better understanding of their individual particular needs.
Admittedly, people usually seek help for gambling problems because they are on a dangerous losing streak, and when their gambling is suffering from adverse consequences on an emotional as well as a financial level. But, I don’t believe that it is as simple as treating them all as bad gamblers. Problem gamblers often display great insight when in the zone, whether that is in financial or sports betting, that skill is often irrespective of styles (e.g. whether it is backing and/or laying, arbitrage strategies or creating small scalping opportunities for profit). They can be skilled, intuitive, extremely knowledgeable about predicting likely price movements and can be highly analytical. They can apply highly developed betting bank management, and can have a well crafted staking plan that usually works for them. This is not like the gambling addict at the FOBT machine or at the roulette table engaged in a cycle of pure speculation and chance, and seemingly inevitable destruction. This is the skilled operator who applies very creative solutions to complex markets.
But, in spite of these skills, there comes a point in their gambling career when they begin to lose control, when they don’t adhere to their own pre-determined rules of discipline around risk management strategies. This breakdown in discipline, and the subsequent phenomena of loss chasing, can often be when things spiral out of control. There is less risk averse behaviour and more risky speculative staking. Behaviour becomes increasingly compulsive, a loss of control, and when adverse consequences start to occur in other areas of their life. Treating such people merely as mug punters, though, might be a huge failure in active listening as these types of problem gamblers don’t want to hear platitudes from their counsellor or standardised questioning about their gambling activities.
So, what do these skilled operators who become problem gamblers want from a counselling intervention? In my experience, they are seeking to uncover the nature of their cognitive distortions when trading. Cognitive distortions are specific thought patterns or beliefs that are inaccurately or irrationally interpreted. They are more related to individual thoughts and perceptions rather than systematic biases in judgement. Here, I outline some of the most common ones in relation to problem gambling.
- All-or-Nothing Thinking
This may also be known as “Black-and-White Thinking,” and could be present when there is an inability or unwillingness to visualise any outcome other than extremes. This is when trading is getting out of control. The bet or trade can only go one way.
- Overgeneralisation
This is when one example is generalised into an overall pattern. It can lead to overly negative thoughts about outcomes based on limited data. It can occur when a trader starts to believe that the price of a stock or a sports position has exhausted its spread and, therefore, the price must swing, at some point, in the opposite direction. It could also be when the punter at the race track is convinced that the favourite can’t win the next race based on the favourite’s performances in the preceding races. A famous example of this occurred when Frankie Dettori won all 7 races on the card at Ascot in 1996. Some took the position that he can’t keep winning, and took a position against him, but he did keep winning.
- Mental Filter
A mental filter can engender a decidedly pessimistic view of future events by focusing only on the negative aspects of a piece of news affecting the market. This focuses on a single negative item of information and removes anything that might have positive associations. The bet or trade can only go in one particular direction because of a single negative comment made by an analyst or a pundit, team selection, state of the going, or some other factor that might seemingly influence the outcome.
- Disqualifying the Positive
This distortion allows for the possibility of positive alternatives but rejects them instead of embracing them. This can facilitate the continuation of negative thought patterns in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. An example of this in gambling terms might be news associated with company earnings and how such news might affect price movements.
- Jumping to Conclusions – Mind Reading
This distortion leads to suspect thinking patterns when we think we know what someone else is thinking. It might be possible to have an idea of what others are thinking and to be able to predict market moves, especially if we have inside information, but the point of this distortion is that it refers to the negative interpretations that are jumped to.
Remember, if someone in the market has an edge by knowing something that might affect price, someone else is also bound to know about it too. The edge is only really an edge in the marketplace if you really know for sure that your knowledge is known by you and only by you.
- Jumping to Conclusions – Fortune Telling
This tendency is to arrive at conclusions and predictions derived from scant evidence and believing that an outcome is a certainty. A trader may short (sell) a stock price based on some perceived negative commentary relating to the particular sector. This is then taken as fact, that the price will inevitably drop, rather than a price drop being one of several possible outcomes.
- Magnification (Catastrophizing) or Minimization
This may also be known as the “Binocular Trick”, given that it messes with perspective. It involves exaggerating or minimizing the meaning, importance, or likelihood of things. A trader makes a mistake and then may magnify the importance of that mistake and believe that their trading is terrible. Or, conversely, a trader who has a big win may minimize the importance of the win and continue believing that they are due a reverse.
- Emotional Reasoning
This can be when we refer to the acceptance of our emotions as fact. It is almost like we are saying to ourselves that “I feel it, therefore it must be true.” Of course, just because we feel something doesn’t mean it is true. A trader might have a particular feeling, or sense, about an outcome in the market. A distortion likes this could remove the dispassionate element of investing/gambling, when rationale and logic are needed, and this can be real poor decision-making takes hold.
Treatment for problem gambling
Rationalisation can be a common feature of problem gambling when there is little comprehension of, and denial of, their compulsive behaviour, lack of control, the adverse consequences that occur and the craving that accompanies any attempt to enter into a period of abstinence. People who have a problem with gambling/trading/investing invariably have an explanation to justify their excesses. This is even more pronounced with skilled gamblers and it can make it difficult to treat them, as they might only want to secure greater insight into where they go wrong and how to correct their poor decision making. Their real desire and intent might be to continue to gamble but next time to avoid their own pitfalls into ill discipline in their staking strategies. This ambivalence might be interpreted as stubbornness and resistance in counselling sessions. But this ambivalence can be positively worked with. Once engaged, problem gamblers can begin to identify the parts of themselves that lose control and which can lead to their ill discipline in respect of their gambling. This could be when they take ownership of their particular vulnerabilities from past gambling inducements and how they can become more insightful in dealing with their ongoing triggers to gamble, or what causes them to gamble to excess.
- Noel Bell is a UKCP accredited psychotherapist based in London and can be contacted on 07852407140.
