Download - 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