Exploring stake restrictions
Participants were asked to discuss the concept of stake limits to better understand how they felt about potential restrictions and the perceived impact of them. The discussion of stake limits raised numerous questions ranging from the practical, to the difficult, and participants often asked themselves tough questions when they explored this issue.
Most participants were aware that some gamblers don’t know how to stop, therefore all participants agree that limiting gambling spend overall would be useful. However, the majority also believed that limits would benefit ‘other people’ rather than themselves.
Few, even those scoring more than 8 on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), thought that they would benefit personally and many, especially low and moderate-risk gamblers, assumed they would spend below any limits as a matter of course. As a consequence, it was common to suggest limits that wouldn’t affect them personally. For example, some suggested stake caps higher than they would normally spend, and caps on games they wouldn’t normally play.
There was little consensus over how limits should be applied, and weighing up the idea of potential limits highlighted various tensions:
- fun versus safety: It’s supposed to be fun, the greater the focus on harm prevention, the less fun it is
- prevention versus freedom: Every move towards harm prevention tends to involve increased restrictions
- effectiveness versus choice: Limits must be low enough to make a difference, yet high enough to give a choice
- stakes versus overall spend: Little agreement over whether focus on individual stakes or overall spend
- choice versus control: Should people spend money as they like, or should they be forced to reduce it?
Chance-based games were thought to be prime candidates for limits, with participants broadly bucketing gambling types into the following three groups:
- Chance-based games
- Participants' arguments for limits:
Too easy to spend a lot swiftly.
Naturally addictive.
Tendency to chase one’s losses.
Can bet more than once on some (for example roulette). - Participants' arguments against limits:
Spend is often low (or at least perceived to be).
More for entertainment than big wins for most players. - Skill-based games
- Participants' arguments for limits:
Chasing losses also common.
Addictive and some stakes can spiral out of control.
Built in need to spend more to win more. - Participants' arguments against limits:
People won’t play if they can’t win big.
Takes longer to lose your money. - Sports and Horse Betting
- Participants' arguments for limits:
Some had personally (or known others who had) put huge amounts on games and/or races.
Some cannot watch games without betting, so may limit spend. - Participants' arguments against limits:
Potential to win large amounts from small stakes, or vice versa.
Far slower turnaround; one off bets common.
May damage enjoyment of sport.
As follows, low-risk and problem gamblers were most likely to approve limits:
Low-risk (PGSI score 0-2)
These participants were broadly in favour of limiting stakes, but wary of losing the fun they see as inherent.
They tend to prefer limits that are far higher than their personal thresholds and have a preference for game-dependent limits such as: more stringent caps for games of chance; greater leniency for skill-based games.
“I think there should be max stakes on non-skilled games. With skilled games like poker and if entering a tournament I think that's okay to have higher stakes because you have to keep up a level of play and it takes longer to lose.” (Female, 24, PGSI 0-2, Scotland).
Moderate-risk (PGSI score 3-7)
While most agreed on limits, the nature of these are divisive, and they argued for multiple variables to be taken into account for example, household income, state of mind.
Opinions amongst this group were mixed, with little consensus reached. It was also common to believe players should be able to overrule any limits.
Problem gambler (PGSI score 8 plus)
Those most at risk were also clear that there should be limits, often because they were aware of the risks.
They placed responsibility firmly on the shoulders of betting firms.
However, participants also recognised that any limits face numerous implementation problems.
“I like it when it is restricted it makes it feel like a responsible site. I restrain myself as I have friends who have gone over, people don’t stop until they’ve got nothing left. Tombola reward you for not going over your deposit.” (Female, 41, PGSI 8 plus, North England).
Views on maximum stakes
Unsurprisingly, risk level also informed participants’ views on what an appropriate maximum stake might look like, as shown as follows4.
Low-risk (PGSI score 0-2)
Most participants in this group favoured low stakes anyway, with the levels. They suggested allowing some scope for big wins, while limiting overall spend.
There was a strong argument that fun is the critical factor rather than stake level and it was more common for them to set aside an amount they assumed they would lose from the outset.
Ultimately these players appeared to be focused on limiting loss and preventing overspend.
£7.20 average suggested stake.
Moderate-risk (PGSI score 3-7)
The participants favoured a sum that finds a balance between making a game ‘worth it’ and avoiding financial mistakes.
They felt wins need to feel worthwhile, so rejected low limits.
They are primed to lose a few games without worrying too much, and their key focus is on enabling decent wins while preventing major risk.
£26.33 average suggested stake.
Problem gambler (PGSI score 8 plus)
Again, this group felt that levels needed to be significant enough to make a bet worthwhile.
Some see larger, low-stakes bets as ‘safer’ than smaller, riskier bets, so argued they need to be allowed this potential.
They also argued that higher stakes encourage greater consideration. This group are focused on the win.
£38.24 average suggested stake.
Alternatives to stake limits
Alternatives to stake limits all suffered from concerns from participants over the practicality of implementation.
Affordability checks5 intuitively felt most fair and sensible, because restrictions would relate to an individuals’ circumstances rather than a blanket restriction. They encourage playing within one’s means and are particularly important for those on lower incomes. However, participants were concerned that it risked being too intrusive, thought it may take the fun out of it, and also questioned how it would be enforced and whether it posed data security risks.
Deposit limits felt relatively unintrusive and straight forward, as they put players in control of their limits and they create a ‘cooling off’ period to prevent rash decisions. However, there were concerns that it could interfere with certain games where continuity may be important, such as poker.
Weekly and monthly limits had similar positives to deposit limits. They were felt to be unintrusive, easy and put players in control. Participants felt that they could be changed according to individual circumstance. However, participants questioned how they would be meaningful if they were not means tested and were concerned that participants could circumvent it if they had the opportunity to change weekly limits.
Loss limits were perceived to go to the heart of the problem, and participants noted that it was a positive approach that doesn’t prevent extended play if people are winning. However, some were concerned that it could make the idea of losing too salient and could encourage people to go elsewhere to make up their losses.
Less popular ideas included session speed limits, duration limits and play and/or spin limits, all of which participants perceived to damage the enjoyment that players value.
The Impact of Stake Restrictions
Hypothetically, stake restrictions were felt to have a greater impact on moderate-risk and problem gamblers. Most low-risk gamblers (PGSI score 0-2) assumed that stake limits would be higher than their typical stake anyway, and therefore such limits would have a limited impact. They imagined that they could only benefit, as it might stop them when they get caught in the heat of the moment, chase a loss or drink to much.
Among moderate-risk gamblers (PGSI score 3-7), responses were largely dictated by personal insight into their own gambling habits. Ultimately, they tended to conform to the views at either end of the risk spectrum and those with greater awareness of their own shortcomings believed it may prevent their worst instincts. The potential impact among this group was mixed, and there was perhaps a greater sense of defensiveness, with stake limits often seen as only applicable to those who are already struggling and/or vulnerable to risk.
Those classified as problem gamblers (PGSI score 8 plus) felt that stake limits would have a significant impact - most thought this would prevent them spending too much and were keen for its introduction; though a small number argued they don’t spend enough for it to have an impact. Some acknowledged that the transition would be hard, and it may stop people playing, but they thought it could make a difference to their lives. Some were concerned that people may open multiple accounts to work around it.
Previous pageExploring online staking - Online gambling tools and limits Next page
Exploring online staking - Conclusion
Last updated: 4 May 2023
Show updates to this content
Left hand navigation re-formatting only.