Online gambling tools and limits
‘Safe gambling’ was perceived by participants as always being in control, with or without support. This was done through awareness of risk and self-imposed restrictions across overall spend, time spent and maximum stake, but also playing with trusted operators that provided information and control over limits.
Whereas moderate-risk gamblers emphasized self-imposed limits, low-risk and those classified as problem gamblers on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) tended to emphasize operator restrictions.
However, there was always the acknowledgement that self-imposed restrictions are often broken, and reminders and interruptions are often appreciated more in the ‘cold state’ of consideration, less so when playing.
All participants wanted to be safe gamblers, but in the ‘hot state'3, self-set limits and operator nudges could easily be overridden.
Online versus In-person gambling
Compared to online gambling, in-person gambling was perceived to be a more restrained, controlled experience. For most, online gambling was increasingly identified as being more 'unsafe' than in-person gambling, although some participants claimed that there is no difference and that if gamblers have restraint, the platform shouldn’t matter.
Safer gambling messaging
Safer gambling communications were perceived as most effective by low-risk gamblers – they were more easily dismissed by moderate risk gamblers and those classified as problem gamblers on the PGSI. In general, safer gambling messages were felt to be easy to opt out of. Without functional barriers in place, they were too easy to ignore.
Attitudes to safer gambling messaging varied according to PGSI status, as can be seen as follows.
Low-risk (PGSI score 0-2)
Low-risk participants were the most likely to feel safer gambling messaging was effective - but see it as primarily for other people. Most felt in control of their spending so opted-out.
Moderate-risk (PGSI score 3-7)
Most moderate-risk gamblers opted out of messaging as it didn’t feel ‘for them’ - they were adamant that they were in control, and don’t like to be reminded to 'gamble responsibly’ because they felt their play was safe.
Problem gambler (PGSI score 8 plus)
Highlighting losses can push spending further – participants classified as problem gamblers on the PGSI were aware that to a certain extent, communications need to be replaced by limits.
Gambling management tools
There are a number of gambling management tools, such as limit-setting, reality checks and time outs, available to help consumers stay safe when gambling. Just under 30 percent (8 out of 28) of participants reported currently using at least one gambling management tool, with the majority not using them and a third of respondents being unaware of the tools.
Most opted out of using gambling management tools due to their perceived irrelevance, either because they felt in control of their own gambling or were conscious of the ease of using workarounds. However, most participants said that they appreciate that the tools are there and will not hesitate to use them when appropriate – but they don’t currently see them as relevant to them.
The small proportion of the sample that did use gambling management tools referenced tools such as spend and deposit limits, self-exclusion and/or timeouts and/or cool off periods, and whilst not technically a ‘tool’, some participants talked about deleting their apps or accounts to help stop them from playing.
Most people with operator limits in place were females classified as moderate-risk or problem gambler categories on the PGSI.
Previous pageExploring online staking - Exploring online gambling spend Next page
Exploring online staking - Exploring stake restrictions
Last updated: 4 May 2023
Show updates to this content
Left hand navigation re-formatting only.