Global Limit Setting as a Responsible Gambling Tool: What Do Players Think?

Abstract

Many companies offer tools to help their clientele gamble more responsibly. Such tools include pre-commitment facilities where the gambler can set voluntary time and money limits. However, empirical evidence is lacking as to whether voluntary or mandatory limit setting has any positive impact on subsequent gambling behavior and whether such measures are of help to high-intensity and/or problem gamblers. In the present study, 2352 gamblers who had played games with Norsk Tipping (NT), the Norwegian Government-owned gambling operator, were surveyed after NT had introduced a mandatory global loss limit across its gaming portfolio. The survey included questions relating to whether players had heard about the new global loss limits, their attitudes towards limit setting, whether they found the global limits personally relevant, the most important reasons for setting the limits, and whether they gambled elsewhere if they reached their loss limits. Findings demonstrated that three-quarters of the sample were aware the new global loss limit had been introduced, two-thirds of the sample knew how to set limits on their gambling, and four-fifths of the sample had a positive attitude towards the global loss limit. Very few gamblers played with other operators after they had reached their spending limits. It is concluded that the introduction of a global loss limit had a positive impact among Norsk Tipping's clientele and the implications for the present findings are discussed.Int J Ment Health Addiction

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

“…This means that limits are generally set in a realistic range of the actual gambling behaviour. This supports previous findings which report that the majority of players think that voluntary spending limits are a useful RG feature (International Gaming Research Unit 2007;Griffiths et al 2009;Auer et al 2018a). Voluntary money limits are not useful if the limits chosen are much higher than the actual gambling habits because they will not help the player to control excessive gambling.…”

“…The extent to which voluntary limits are used strongly depends on a gaming operator's overall RG strategy. Some companies require all players to choose a limit, and/or have maximum loss limits whereas other operators offer limit-setting as an entirely voluntary tool (Auer et al 2018a). The authors believe that the present study's result is an important argument for player protection because it demonstrates that voluntary limitsetting does not increase players' inactivity.…”

Use of Consumer Protection Tools on Internet Gambling Sites: Customer Perceptions, Motivators, and Barriers to Use

“…The reported reasons for tool use indicate that many participants were seeking to be proactive in ensuring that they were gambling at sustainable levels, and a notable proportion of those using limits and time-outs did so to avoid developing gambling problems. This supports findings from a Swedish Internet gambling study indicating that 23% of users of consumer protection tools used these to play safely (Griffiths et al, 2009) and a Norwegian study which found more positive attitudes towards limit setting among low-risk compared to high-risk gamblers (Auer, Reiestad, & Griffiths, 2018).…”

Experiences of responsible gambling tools among non-problem gamblers: A survey of active customers of an online gambling platform

“…The second and third most common sources of frustration were the voluntary nature of the limits in the RG tool in question (as opposed to mandatory) and the fact that RG tools let the user's winnings compensate for the wagered money distorting the picture of how much money was invested in gambling, both points indicating a demand for stricter RG tools ( Griffiths et al, 2009 ). A recent survey of Norwegian gamblers found a more positive attitude towards a global limit setting among low-risk compared to high-risk gamblers ( Auer, Reiestad, & Griffiths, 2018 ). A Swedish longitudinal study found that unregulated Internet operators had the highest proportion of problem gamblers among their customers compared to the regulated market ( Svensson & Romild, 2011 ), suggesting that recreational gamblers are not the category at highest risk of abandoning the legal gambling market, that is often obliged to implement RG tools.…”