Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Series Title
      Series Title
      Clear All
      Series Title
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Content Type
    • Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Country Of Publication
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Target Audience
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
586,747 result(s) for "GAMBLING"
Sort by:
Do Sportsbooks Accurately Price Money Line Odds?
Employing a unique NFL gambling dataset that includes both spread and money line data, we examine the disconnect in profitability between similar betting strategies across the two markets. If a naïve bettor wagered$110 on the favorite in every game against the spread (money line) he or she would, on average, lose $ 4.50 ( $4.53) per game. Conversely, if the same bettor wagered $ 110 on the underdog every game he or she would, on average, lose $3.11 per game in the spread market, but lose less than 1 cent per game in the money line market. Further examination shows that a bettor could earn a 2.17% return betting the money line on the underdog if the closing spread was 7 or less and greater than 3, and 6.55% if the spread is 3 or less. As such, our results challenge the market efficiency of the NFL betting market and have important implications for sportsbooks and bettors.
El Juego de Azar Problemático en Menores de Edad: Con Quién, Dónde y Por Qué
Background:Underage gambling is a widespread phenomenon with its own characteristics that differentiate it from adult gambling. In addition, problem gambling has shown a remarkable prevalence in previous studies. The present study examines underage gambling behaviour, studying its characteristics, as well as motivational and contextual aspects, and estimating the volume of problem gambling and possible moderating variables. Method:A sample of 9,681 students aged between 12 and 17 years old reported their involvement in gambling and filled in the Brief Adolescent Gambling Screen (BAGS), with 4,617 of them completing a questionnaire about gambling behaviours. Results:Almost a quarter (23.5%) of the students reported having gambled in their lifetime (16.2% in-person, 1.4% online and 6% in both modalities), and 1.9% presented symptoms of problem gambling (BAGS ≥ 4). In-person gamblers preferred sport-betting machines, usually gambled in bars, and did not have their age checked. Online gamblers reported mainly sports betting, doing so on websites and paying with PayPal-like services and credit cards. Most gambled with friends and to win money. Problem gamblers were similar but gambled more frequently. Conclusions:These results present an image of the gambling situation among minors and, more importantly, of its context and related variables.
At Odds
Using a rich variety of historical sources, Suzanne Morton traces the history of gambling regulation in five Canadian provinces ? Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and B.C. ? from the First World War to the federal legalization in 1969.
355 Learning Related Power Changes in Caudate Nucleus
Abstract INTRODUCTION Associative learning is the process whereby a connection is formed between a sensory cue and an outcome resulting from a behavioral response. This process allows us to learn to adapt and optimally respond to a changing environment. Primate research has demonstrated that the caudate nucleus is involved in associative learning and contains information encoding whether a response was correct or incorrect. Our objective was to determine whether correlates of learning are present in the human caudate nucleus and to differentiate between learning and reward related signaling. METHODS Five subjects who underwent depth electrode placement for seizure localization for medically refractory epilepsy were included in our study. Two behavioral tasks were performed while intracranial local field potentials were recorded from the implanted electrodes. A learning task required subjects to learn an association between a series of presented images and a button press. A gambling task required subjects to place a wager on the outcome of a simulated card game. We computed power in caudate electrodes and compared power during the feedback epoch of the task between correct and incorrect trials for the learning task and between winning and losing trials for the gambling task. RESULTS >There was a significant increase in beta (15-30Hz) power during the feedback epoch of the learning task, with significant differences between beta power following correct versus incorrect responses. Conversely, no difference in beta power was seen during the feedback epoch of the gambling task between winning and losing trials. CONCLUSION Changes in beta power were seen in the caudate nucleus that differed between correct and incorrect trials in a learning task. No correlate was seen in a gambling task, suggesting that this signal is related specifically to learning rather than to reward.
Long-term efficacy of an optimized online gambling self-exclusion procedure with extended suspension of commercial solicitations: a randomized controlled trial
Background Most individuals self-excluding from gambling have lost control over their gambling behavior. Commercial solicitations are prohibited during the self-exclusion period, but resume immediately afterwards. The self-exclusion system appears insufficient, particularly for short self-exclusions and among the heaviest gamblers. We assessed the impact of extending suspension of commercial solicitations on gambling intensity. Methods In this parallel randomized study, we included 2548 French online gamblers who self-excluded for up to 3 months from May–November 2022. They were assigned 1:1 to optimized self-exclusion with extended commercial solicitations ban for 9 months or standard procedure. The primary outcome was the change in total loss over the past 4 weeks at Month 9. We also assessed total deposit, total stakes, compulsivity, number and duration of gaming sessions and subsequent self-exclusions at 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Results Participants were randomized to the optimized group (n = 1265) or standard group (n = 1283). The results didn’t show a significant difference in the reduction in total losses. The optimized group showed significantly reduced 4-week total deposits versus standard group at 6 months (455.68 euros vs. 319.65 euros, p  = 0.017), 9 months (451.92 euros vs. 343.21 euros, p  = 0.040), and 12 months (484.27 euros vs. 370.02 euros, p  = 0.025). Significance was lost at 18 months (492.61 euros vs. 404.73 euros, p  = 0.087). Conclusions An extended 9-month ban on direct commercial solicitations after self-exclusion significantly reduces gambling deposits during, and 3 months after, the ban. This supports the effectiveness of improving self-exclusion procedure. Future research should explore longer bans and indirect commercial solicitations. Trial registration : NCT05413564.