Deposit Limit Prompt in Online Gambling for Reducing Gambling Intensity: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Pre-commitment tools – allowing users of gambling services to pre-set a limit for how much money they may spend – are relatively common. However, there exist no clear evidence of their effectiveness in preventing gamblers from spending more money than they otherwise planned. The aim of the study was to compare gambling intensity between users of an online gambling service prompted to set a deposit limit and non-prompted customers, both in the whole sample and among most active users based on the total number of gambling days. Prospective customers of a publicly governed gambling operator from Finland were randomized to receive a prompt to set a voluntary deposit limit of optional size either (1) at registration, (2) before or (3) after their first deposit, or (4) to an unprompted control condition. Data on customers from Finland with online slots as a preferred gambling category ( N = 4328) were tracked in the platform for 90 days starting at account registration, gambling intensity being measured with aggregated net loss. The intervention groups did not differ from each other in either proportion of participants with positive net loss or size of positive net loss. The pooled intervention group did not differ from the control group regarding proportion of gamblers with positive net loss (OR = 1.0; p = 0.921) or size of net loss ( B = -0.1; p = 0.291). The intervention groups had higher rates of limit-setters compared to the control condition (OR at-registration/pre-deposit/post-deposit = 11.9/9.2/4.1). Customers who have increased/removed a previously set deposit limit had higher net loss than the limit-setters who have not increased/removed their limit (B at-registration/pre-deposit/post-deposit/control = 0.7/0.6/1.0/1.3), and unprompted limit-setters lost more than unprompted non-setters ( B = 1.0). Prompting online gamblers to set a voluntary deposit limit of optional size did not affect subsequent net loss compared to unprompted customers, motivating design and evaluation of alternative pre-commitment tools. Setting a deposit limit without a prompt or increasing/removing a previously set limit may be a marker of gambling problems and may be used to identify customers in need of help.

An Empirical Study of the Effect of Voluntary Limit-Setting on Gamblers’ Loyalty Using Behavioural Tracking Data

“…The increased percentage of players using the voluntary money setting feature in the present study may purely be because such RG features are now more embedded in modern online gambling websites and/or are more advertised to players within-site than they were 10 years ago. The percentage of 8.3% of players setting a voluntary limit in the present study was similar to that to the recent study by Ivanova et al (2019) who found that 6.5% of newly registered players set a voluntary limit 90 days after registration without actively being prompted by the operator to do so. In each of the ten playing intensity groups in the present study, the percentage of active players in the first quarter of 2017 was higher in the group of players who had set voluntary money limits in the first quarter of 2016 compared to players that did not.…”

“…Among a sample from 100,000 online players at win2day, Auer and Griffiths (2013) found that deposit limits subsequently decreased gambling expenditure among casino and lottery players, and that time limits decreased gambling expenditure among poker players. More recently, in a real-world experimental study with 4328 players from an European online gambling operator, Ivanova et al (2019) found that newly registered players were more likely to set voluntary limits if they were actively prompted by the gambling operator to do so. However, players who set voluntary limits without being prompted to do so lost more money gambling than players who did not set limits.…”

Predicting Limit-Setting Behavior of Gamblers Using Machine Learning Algorithms: A Real-World Study of Norwegian Gamblers Using Account Data

“…Using a matched-pairs design, the study showed that among the players overall, receiving the message significantly reduced their gambling expenditure 3 months later. Ivanova et al (2019) compared the gambling intensity between users of an online gambling service prompted to set a deposit limit and non-prompted customers. They found that prompting online gamblers to set a voluntary deposit limit of optional size did not affect subsequent net loss compared to unprompted customers, who set deposit limits without being prompted.…”

Modeling Longitudinal Gambling Data: Challenges and Opportunities

“…For instance, 13 of the 14 CBT studies included in a Cochrane review of psychological treatments for gambling disorder included a measure of financial losses (Cowlishaw et al, 2012). These reports can be self-reported using diary-type methods, such as the timeline follow-back (TLFB; Weinstock, Whelan, & Meyers, 2004), or using singleitem scales, or be based on real player data, e.g., when a responsible gambling intervention is evaluated in collaboration with the industry (Auer & Griffiths, 2016;Ivanova, Magnusson, & Carlbring, 2019;Jonsson, Hodgins, Munck, & Carlbring, 2019). Behavioral measures commonly focus on days gambled and net money lost, which are thought to capture the majority of negative consequences associated with excessive gambling (Walker et al, 2006, p. 505).…”

“…Unfortunately, the issue of missing data is generally a big concern in gambling intervention studies (Grant, Kim, & Kuskowski, 2004;Hodgins, Stea, & Grant, 2011;Westphal, 2008). In a review of psychological treatments Melville, Casey, and Kavanagh (2007), found that the dropout ranged from 14% to 50%, with a median of 26%.…”