Do gamblers exceed their limits while playing pokies and will technology help?

The latest Australian research insights about pre-commitment

Presentation by Sarah HareDirector - Schottler Consulting Pty Ltd

sarah@schottler.com.au

Overview

• Pre-commitment is a very topical issue at the moment

• But what are the facts?

• Presentation brings you some of the latest insights about:

• Part I - Factors which influence adherence to pre-commitments (A study funded by Gambling Research Australia)

• Part II – Major learnings from trials of pre-commitment technologies

• Part III - What could this all mean for problem gambling counsellors?

Part I: Research on factors which influence EGM player adherence to gambling spend limits

A study funded by Gambling Research Australia(Schottler Consulting, 2010)

Research overview

• Research examined factors which influence whether gamblers kept to their limits during EGM play

• Shadowing of 200 EGM players across Australia during pokies play

• Challenging method as all play transactions were recorded LIVE during play

• One of very few behavioural studies of EGM play

• Possibly the first study EVER to manually record live play transactions

• Findings revealed many insights into both EGM player behaviour and EGM player adherence to limits during play

This shows the complexity of the data recording method! (+ a detailed survey as well)

How do EGM players set their limits?

• In addition to money limits, 80% set bet size limit, 28% time limit• 42% of problem gamblers set a bet size limit on more than 2 credits per line (versus 15% of non-problem gamblers)• At-risk gamblers were less likely to set a time limit (compared to non-problem gamblers)• When a time limit was set, problem gamblers set a higher time limit (p<.05) (81.3 v 50.3 minutes)

• Only half (52%) set their expenditure limit more than a day before play

• Problem gamblers were less likely to ‘always’ set limits (p<.001)

• Despite this, problem gamblers were also more likely to report loans (p<.05)

• Higher-risk players also tended to report fewer household budget categories

• Problem gamblers were more likely to overspend household budgets (especially food, car, cigarette budgets) (p<.05)

Problem gamblers had great difficulty deciding on their limit (!)

Did EGM players keep to their limits?

• Based on observation of spending - Between 12-16% of EGM players exceeded their spend limit in a single session

• However, based on self-report – only 7% reported exceeding their spend limit

• 17% exceeded time limit (based on observation) (or 2% based on self-report)

• 7% exceeded their bet size limit (based on self-report)

• Results raise issues such as:

• How should adherence to limits be measured?

• How often and where should players set limits?

Factors which influenced whether players kept to spend limits – General factors

• Players who set spend limits closer to play were more likely to not adhere to their limits (p>.05)

• Players exceeding spend limits were less likely to set a time limit (p<.05)

• 30% of players reported using ‘control strategies’ and players who didn’t report ‘control strategies’ were more likely to exceed their limit (p<.05)

• Players exceeding spend limits were less likely to notice RG signage(p<.01) and players not noticing signage were more absorbed in play (p<.05)

• Players exceeding spend limits were more likely to feel they were ‘due’ for a win (p<.01) and to report ‘chasing losses’ (p<.001)(especially after a feature!)

Factors which influenced whether players kept to spend limits – EGM design factors

• Players were more likely to exceed their EGM expenditure limit if they:

• Received an increased number of free spins (after moving from the 1st to 2nd EGM) (p<.001)

• Were highly absorbed and involved in play (p<.05)

• Reported feeling stronger urges to continue during EGM play (p<.05)

• Experienced high excitement after receiving features during EGM play (p<.05)

• Findings also showed a link between speed of play and adherenceto limits (p<.05)

• Recent retirement increased likelihood that playersexceeded limits (p<.01)

• Players were less likely to exceed expenditure limits if they had ‘money worries’ and reported the following in past year:

• Taking on a mortgage, loan or making a large purchase (p<.01)

• Experiencing daily money hassles (p<.05)

• Concern over owing money or debts (p<.05)

• Concern over job security (p<.05)

Factors which influenced whether players kept to spend limits – Lifestyle factors

Factors which predict urges to continue EGM play

• Promotions + prizes were also linked to excitement (p<.001)

• The greater the change in excitement(from EGM1-2), the greater the urge to continue (p<.001)

Other interesting EGM LIVE play observations

• Both moderate risk and problem gamblers tended to play EGMs offering higher prizes

• Problem gamblers were more likely to select linked jackpot machines(55% compared to only 41% of non-problem gamblers)

• Problem gamblers were more likely to play at hotels (69% compared to 37% of non-problem gamblers)

• Moderate risk and problem gamblers played in areas where there were fewer people

• Problem gamblers put more money on the credit meter before commencing play

• Problem gamblers made more multiple credit bets and used double-up more frequently than non-problem gamblers

Conclusions

• Various aspects of EGM and venue design may be related to players exceeding limits or the urge to continue play (e.g., Free spins, features, loyalty points, prizes + incentives)

• Problem gamblers have difficulty deciding on their spend limit, have less clear household budgets + may play faster

• Provides many insights of relevance to gambling harm-minimisation policye.g., Where players should set limits The need for education about how to set limits Risks of linked jackpots, loyalty systems, prizes and incentives etc.

Part II: Major learnings from real trials of pre-commitment technologies

Learnings from four trials of REAL pre-commitment systems(3 in Queensland, 1 in South Australia)

What do pre-commitment systems look like?

• Peripherals with electronics which track spending (time and money)• Different media - Cards (mag stripe, smart cards), proximity readers, USB sticks etc.

• System emits a visible and audible warning (a beep) when you reach your limit

• Don’t necessarily get locked out of the system – but can continue playing on most

• Many work with a loyalty system

• Typically cooling off period for changing your limit – e.g., 24hrs or 48hrs

• Two types of system• Cashless systems – Allow you to store cash on cards

• Non-cashless systems – No storage of money on cards

• Many different features• Some allow you to set limits on the EGM, others at a terminal (some both)

• Some allow you to automatically transfer money to the credit meter (e.g., $5, $20 etc.)

• You can usually print-outs of expenditure (not compulsory though)

• Special features in some – e.g., Personalised ‘reminders’, breaks in play, staff notification systems when players reach limits

What do we know so far about use of pre-commitment?

(from trials)

• Not many people use it if voluntary

• Venue staff struggle to sell and promote pre-commitment

• Strong brand association between pre-commitment + PG

Venue promotion of pre-commitmentcan be problematic, but (!)

• If the venue puts reasonable effort into promotion, it does increase uptake

• Many users can be recruited to use the system within a fairly short period

• Opt-out better than opt-in

The venue experience withpre-commitment

• Venues and staff perceive it as very onerous BEFORE they experience it – especially time for staff and players to learn

• Then following experience with systems, they realise it’s quite easy

• Staff adapt and don’t find it burdensome

• The reality is that most time is getting people set-up

• An ‘average venue’ may need about ~3mths to get into full swing

System design is linked toharm-minimization potential

• System design plays a role in pre-commitment system effectiveness

• The most confusing aspect of systems involves players setting limits

• This is also because some systems have MANY options (Some far too many) – For instance:

• Players are often confused by the huge number of limits you can set

• Imagine being asked to set: MONEY LIMITS, TIME LIMITS, BET LIMITS, BREAKS IN PLAY…

• Then different limits for daily, weekly, monthly and yearly expenditure

• What happens is that many players set totally non-sensical limits

• Bottom line is that some systems and options are far too complex

Players don’t always remember limits or set affordable limits

• Also issue that many players forget the limits they set (!)

• PGs may not have the capacity to work out an ‘affordable limit’

• SA trial showed that players may set limits higher than their typical spending

• 62% players in SA trial selected limits higher than usual spending

• If players want to circumvent the system, they probably will

• One way is just setting a very high limit ($1,000), which you never reach (!)

How useful is pre-commitment?

• Reasonably strong evidence that many EGM players find it useful • It makes you aware of what you are spending so you can have more control

• I saw the advertisements around the venue and asked the staff about it. It sounded very good, so I signed up

• It's a good idea for people to keep to a budget or limit

• Cashless systems allow people to move from EGM to EGM quickly(e.g., no waiting for pay-outs or hopper refills)

• Reasonable evidence that higher-risk users find it more useful - For instance, SA trial found that:

• 23% of MRs reported improved limit adherence

• 14% of MRs and 38% of PGs reported greater expenditure awareness

From SA trial of ‘Play Smart’

How useful is pre-commitment?

Based on SA trial and USERS ONLY – estimated expenditure changes (estimates – as turnover data used for analysis)

•Decline in spending of ~$22 per player (a 31% decrease)

•Mean decrease in spending was larger for at-risk gamblers (than NPGs)

• NPGs - down 5% - decrease of roughly ~$1 spend • LRs - down 12% - decrease of roughly ~$9 spend• MRs - down 49% - decrease of roughly ~ $48 spend• PGs - down 56% - decrease of ~$35 spend

Part III: What are possible implications ofpre-commitment for counselling services?

Some points for reflection..

Observational research study of EGM players

• Highlights that there is value in EGM player education on:

• Budgeting (Many PGs have very poor budgeting skills)

• How to choose limits (PGs often don’t select appropriate limits)

• When to set limits (Limits set too close to play may be harmful)

• Time limits with money may be useful

• Limits reported by PGs should be taken with a grain of salt(Their limits tend to vary a lot over time)

• Free spins, features, loyalty systems + prizes may contribute to the ‘urge to gamble’

• Could explore in counselling

• Potential for CBT techniques

Proposed pre-commitment legislation

• Bills before parliament will require:

By the end of 2013, pre-commitment technology to be available on every gaming machine in Australia

• For further detail see the Fahcsia web site:

www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/gamblingdrugs/progserv/problemgambling/Pages/nat_gam_reform_bills.aspx

Pre-commitment trials

Highlight the future potential for counsellors/educators to:

•Play a role in encouraging player uptake of pre-commitment in venues

•Assist gamblers to make more informed decisions about limits they choose

•Educate venue staff about pre-commitment benefits for NPGs and PGs

•Encourage PGs in counselling who continue to gamble to try pre-commitment

•Encourage pre-commitment use for informed decision making about spending

•Though ALSO be aware that:

• There is no definitive evidence that compulsory pre-commitment will FIX problem gambling

• Though there is some evidence that pre-commitment offers some value to most gamblers

• Need much more research to examine whether pre-commitment could assist in preventing the development of problem gambling (??)

• Cannot force people to change if they don’t want to (!)

For interest….

• Verbatim:

‘Mandatory or full pre-commitment simply refers to a system where a player is required to set limits and then cannot renege on these. Limits could not be changed simply because a player decided on a whim to change his or her mind. Once the player reached their pre-set limit, further play is disabled’

• See:www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/...ctte/precommitment.../c05.pdf