Responsible gambling is a vital part of the UK gambling industry, and player protection is one of the main aims of the UK Gambling Commission. To receive a license, gambling providers must have responsible gambling tools in place before they begin operating; they must also abide by the continually updated Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice, a living document regularly updated with new gambling regulations and guidance by the UKGC.
In recent years, updated regulations have introduced affordability checks, rules and guidance on interacting with players and flagging at-risk behaviours, limits on slot spin speeds, and stricter advertising codes of practice. The continual regulatory updates sit alongside a suite of self-service tools that players can access and are encouraged to use as part of responsible gambling and a self-monitoring strategy. These self-service tools include:
- Deposit limits restrict deposits with the choice of daily, weekly and monthly maximum caps.
- Reality checks remind players how long they’ve been logged on and playing for or how much they have spent.
- Product restrictions: allow players to block which gambling products they can access.
- Time-outs: block a player’s access to a gambling site for a specific period — usually up to six weeks.
- Self-exclusion: Voluntary self-exclusion (VSE) blocks players from engaging with a gambling site for six months or more. If a player self-excludes from one provider, it only applies to the sites operated by that company. For a more wide-reaching exclusion, players can use GAMSTOP to register for a temporary ban from all UK gambling sites. The land-based equivalent is SENSE. VSE usually applies for six months to five years. Players can also instruct their banks to prevent gambling transactions, curtailing spending.
Different self-management tools are appropriate for different players depending on their level of concern. Players have access to all the tools and can quickly implement any on their casino accounts in minutes.
Some tools like deposit limits and budget setting are encouraged for all players as a way of monitoring gambling behaviours. Still, they are not mandatory currently (the upcoming white paper might be set to change this, with potential per-player budgets and more comprehensive affordability checks being introduced).
Related Posts
Effectiveness of account limiting tools
Account limiting tools include budget and playtime limits as well as reality checks. The idea behind setting limits on gambling is to ensure that consumers avoid emotional responses when gambling. Various research has shown that when a person is experiencing higher levels of emotion, less informed decision-making is used, which can lead to higher spending and a lack of control in gambling situations. When inputting limits before gambling, the decision-making process is without emotional arousal.
Account limits for both deposits and playtime are effective in helping reduce spending, keeping players on a budget, and positively influencing gambling behaviours. They are most effective when it is mandatory to set a limit or opt-out, over voluntary, as even opting out means players are aware of account limiting tools and must make an active choice not to implement them – effectively, it raises awareness of responsible gambling.
As a preventative measure, reality checks are also very effective. Stewart and Wohl (2013) found that when a pop-up message sharing financial information was used, 89.66% of players involved in their study opted to stick to their pre-set spending limits, compared with 43.33% when players received no messaging.
The content of the message is important and personalised feedback is far more effective in creating behavioural change in gamblers than generic or simple messaging (Auer and Griffiths, 2016). As this has been shown as a successful safeguarding technique, it’s now standard practice for UK casinos to include information regarding total loses and wins during a playing session.
While personalised pop-up messaging is not the norm, the new customer interaction guidelines from the UKGC include instructions for operators on how and when to engage with players who are showing at-risk behaviour, such as exceeding their pre-set limits. When players exceed both financial and time limits, it indicates that a lack of control already exists.
Effectiveness of time-outs and self-exclusion
A time-out is a less permanent measure that can break a cycle. It’s designed to stop dissociation, which is common in gambling and increases the risk of players overspending. While reality checks can also stop dissociation, a time-out is more effective by halting play. Self-exclusion is a more permanent measure that can be set from six months to five years. In contrast to account-limiting tools, VSE and time-outs are considered a harm-minimisation strategy.
As noted by Gainsbury (2014), upon reviewing the literature on the effectiveness of self-exclusion, there’s a gap on the subject with little ‘robust and comprehensive research’ available. We do know that some evidence shows that self-exclusion programs benefit problem gamblers, reducing gambling behaviours and the severity of problem gambling. There is also an improvement in psychological functioning and perception of control over gambling.
Gainsbury also records that self-exclusion policies don’t prevent gamblers from breaching them. A later study emphasised the need for ‘closing loopholes’ to increase the effectiveness of self-exclusion programs.
To see the scale of the issue of VSE players evading a GAMSTOP ban in the UK, we used MOZ to conduct localised keyword research. ‘Non gamstop casinos’ has a monthly volume of over 500, while ‘casinos not on gamstop’ hits over 1200 searches per month. This suggests issues with the real-life effectiveness of VSE programs in the UK.
Which are the best safer gambling tools for slot players?
According to research, it’s clear that responsible gambling tools are split into two divisions: preventative measures, which we argue here should be mandatory for all players (even if this is implemented as compulsory opt-out, as this active decision-making process has been shown to impact gambling behaviour positively), and reactive measures, which seek to limit harm when gambling addiction is already taking place.
Hence, the most effective, safer gambling tools depend on the level of gambling harm a player is experiencing. For example, a deposit limit is not appropriate for a player who is gambling daily, experiencing significant financial loss, and wants to stop gambling altogether. In this case, self-exclusion would be the right tool, and realistically, even this is not enough; the player would also require public or private treatment and support for addiction.
A fundamental issue with self-service responsible gambling tools is that they rely on customers being able to identify their behaviours and decide to self-manage, which doesn’t align with compulsive behaviour. This is why operator interactions with at-risk players are so crucial in helping identify and manage problem gambling.
Overall, and most importantly, account limits should be used for effective player protection from when a player signs up. They positively impact player behaviours and prevent at-risk gambling behaviours and dissociation. However, as has been witnessed with the fallout from the upcoming white paper, many players are against mandatory affordability checks and per-player budgets. Thus, regulators must give more awareness and reassurance to consumers.
