What factors influence the ability of gamblers to keep to limits during pokies play?

Factors which influence EGM player adherence to gambling spend limits

s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y

Research commissioned by Gambling Research Australia Presentation by Sarah Hare

Director - Schottler Consulting Pty Ltd [email protected]


Research overv iew

•  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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A. EGMB. Max EGM prize

Money IN MULTI BETS Spins/games associated with LOSSES OR WINS FREE SPINS/FEATURES WON Double up/gamble

C.

CO

INS

($)

D.

NO

TES

($)

J. Multi-credit bets

E. Money lost

F. Win $0.01-$5

G. Win $5.01-$10

H. Win $10.01-20

I. Wins more

than $20

K. Free spinswon

L. Featureswon

M. Won from free

spins/features

N. Tally O. Amountwon/lost

$

(i) NAME

(ii) DENOM1c / 2c / 5 c

(iii) AGEVery new / new / older

(iv) T/SCRNYes / No

(iv)2m radius

B1. Is this

machine a linked jackpot?(circle)

Yes / No

$ WINS

LOSSESAfter F/spinExcitement - ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Urge - ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

After Feat.Excitement - ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Urge - ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Every 5min (5=highest score)Excitement - ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ ___ _____ _____ _____

Urge - ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___

P. Songs playing?

Q. Sound of other EGM coins falling (EXCLUDING player’s)

R. Alcoholic drinksconsumed (part or full)

S. Money accessed from ATM or EFTPOS (provide $) - EVEN IF NOT SPENT

U. Money cashed OUTTOTAL $

Yes / NoWINE:BEERS:SPIRITS:

ATM:

EFTPOS:

T. OTHER ACTIVITIES or events(list each and minutes)

V. FINISH TIME -->

X. PLAY SATISFACTION (5=highest)

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


How do EGM players set thei r l imi ts?

•  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 budget categories

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

BB

B

3734.3

31.2J

JJ

31.627.3 29.2

H H H

47.3 47.4 46.1

F

F

F

105.4

123.8

68.6

Outside venue Before play at venue After play at venue20

40

60

80

100

120

Mea

n E

GM

exp

enditure

lim

it (

$)

B Non-problem gamblers

J Low risk gamblers

H Moderate risk gamblers

F Problem gamblers

Self-reported EGM expenditure limits at three different points in time

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


Did EGM players keep to thei r l imi ts?

•  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?


Fac to rs wh ich in f luenced whether p layers kep t to spend l im i t s – Genera l fac to rs

•  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!)


Fac to rs wh ich in f luenced whether p layers kep t to spend l im i t s – EGM des ign fac to rs

•  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 adherence to limits (p<.05)

Non-problem gamblers

Low risk gamblers

Moderate risk gamblers

Problem gamblers

Non-problem gamblers

Low risk gamblers

Moderate risk gamblers

Problem gamblers

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Mea

n sp

ins

per

min

ute

5.55.2 5.3 5.1

5.55.1

7.8

12

EGM spins per minute of play (excluding free spins, features and use of double-up)

Mean spins per minute by risk for problem gambling and player adherence to precommitted spend limits

Mean spins - players who adhered to limits

Mean spins - players who did NOT adhere to limits


•  Recent retirement increased likelihood that players exceeded 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)

Fac to rs wh ich in f luenced whether p layers kep t to spend l im i t s – L i fes ty le fac to rs

Fac to rs wh ich p red ic t u rges to con t inue EGM p lay

Excitement from features

Factors which predict urge to continue during EGM play

The higher excitement ratings whenfeatures were received during play(r=.599, p<.001)

Overall play excitementThe higher the overall play excitement(r=.526, p<.001)

Loyalty points/incentivesThe more players visited venue forloyalty points/incentives (r=.214, p<.01)

Coin drops in backgroundThe more players heard coin drops inthe background (r=.196, p<.01)

Friendliness of venue staffThe friendlier the sta! were at theEGM venue (r=.178, p<.05)

Higher number of multi-creditsThe total multi-credit bets madeduring EGM play (r=.166, p<.05)

Money won - free spins/featuresThe more money won by players followingfree spins/features (r=.164, p<.05)

Tending towards significance

Excitement from free spinsThe higher the excitement ratings whenfree spins were received (r=.322, p<.01)

Player desire for wins (r=.13, p=.07) The more players had wins from $10-20(r=.272, p=.09) or 1c-$5 (r=.13, p=.07) The more spins associated with moneylost (r=.14, p=.06)

Total features during session

Total free spins during session

The more features recorded during thelive observation (r=.247, p<.001)

The total free spins recorded duringthe live observation (r=.216, p<.01)

Higher urge to continue EGM play

Controlling for risk for problem gambling

•  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 in te res t ing EGM L IVE p lay observa t ions

•  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 (eg. Free spins, features, loyalty points + incentives)

•  While there are many risk factors for exceeding limits, many players also have an ability to self-regulate

•  Research also suggests that problem gamblers have difficulty deciding on their spend limit, have less clear household budgets + may play faster

•  Highlights the need for balance and control during gambling

What factors influence the ability of gamblers to keep to limits during pokies play?

Education

Transcript of What factors influence the ability of gamblers to keep to limits during pokies play?