Integrity & Internet Sports Gambling

European Gaming and Betting AssociationEuropean Parliament

Brussels, Belgium

Howard J. Shaffer, Ph.D., C.A.S.

February 17, 2009

•Richard LaBrie•Debi LaPlante•Sarah Nelson•Anja Schumann•Ziming Xuan•John Kleschinsky•Allyson Pellar•Leslie Bosworth•Ingrid Maurice•Sara Kaplan•Gabriel Caro•Chris Reilly•Chrissy

Thurmond

Acknowledgments•bwin Interactive Entertainment, AG

•The National Center for Responsible Gaming

•The Las Vegas Sand Corporation

•Iowa Department of Public Health•Nevada Department of Public

Health•Missouri Port Authority•National Institute on Alcohol

Abuse and Alcoholism•National Institute on Mental

Health•National Institute on Drug

Abuse•Massachusetts Council on

Compulsive Gambling•Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation•University of Nevada, Las

Vegas

Objectives

•Review the meaning of INTEGRITY

•Show how studying actual gambling behavior rather than self-reports provides insight into whether Internet gambling compromises integrity

•Consider some of the findings from our Internet-based research

Oversimplifying Integrity:

Three Primary Types•Self-integration - integrating parts of an

individual or group into a harmonious whole

•Individual or group identity - consistency of commitment

•Representing personal virtue or moral purpose – holding these virtues limit the set of commitment options for an individual or group

Integrity & the Internet

The Internet has integrity when:

•Technological components have consistency of design & function (integration)

•You get what you pay for without deception (honest commerce)

•Internet use will not compromise the public health

•What people do on the Internet reflects their individual commitments, motivations, & objectives

Internet Gambling Might Challenge Internet IntegrityPopulation challenge

•Some observers have suggested that gambling will compromise the integrity of society, in general, and families, in particular

Individual challenge

•Some researchers have suggested that the Internet, in general, and Internet gambling, in particular, will compromise the integrity of Internet users and Internet gamblers by encouraging disordered gambling

Population Challenge:Speculating About Exposure

“…current data shows that when gambling activities are legalized, economies will be plagued with 100% to 550% increases in the numbers of addicted gamblers (probably within one to five years, but almost certainly within fifteen years).”

John Warren KindtThe Economic Aspects of Legalized Gambling Activities, Drake Law Review, 43, 1994, p.59.

Evidence about the Population Challenge•Prevalence of gambling disorders has

been relatively stable during the past 35 years, despite dramatic increases in the growth of gambling exposure and access.

•In the United States, the rate of serious gambling disorders was 0.7% during the middle 1970s. Today researchers estimate the rate to be about 0.6%.

“If they don’t depend on true evidence, scientists are no better

than gossips.”

Herbert Flowerdew to Fred Fairly, in The Gate of Angels, ch. 3 (1990).

Penelope Fitzgerald(British author)

Internet Gambling Evidence Before 2007:

No Studies of Actual Internet Gambling Behavior

Internet Gambling Evidence After 2007: Studies of Actual Internet Gambling Behavior Begin to

Appear

Internet Gambling

Division on Addictions

Collaborative

8 month data set

bwin Longitudinal Cohort

Median BehaviorsTotal Sample and Most Involved Losers (1%)

Measure Total (39,719) Top B&L* (144)

Duration 116 (of 244) 219 (of 244)

Frequency 23% 50%

Bets/day 2.5 7

Euros/bet 4 42

Total Wagered 148 21,807

Net Loss 33 3,914

% Lost 29% 18%

Self and Corporate Deposit Limits

Corporate Deposit LimitsOnly 0.3% attempted to

exceed deposit limits These subscribers

evidenced higher average number of bets per active betting day and higher average size of bets

Notification did not curtail betting behavior

Self-imposed Deposit Limits

1.2% exercised the self-limit option for deposits

These subscribers played a wider variety of games and placed more bets

After imposing self-limits, fixed odds gambling changed. Players

reduced their active betting days reduced the number of bets they

made per day reduced the amount they wagered

during specific time periods

DO INTERNET GAMBLERS REALLY CHASE THEIR LOSSES?

Account Closers Who Report Having Gambling

Problems

ResultsAccountClosers

Full sample

Total subjects 226 264

Total observations (daily aggregates)

10,143 10,199

Age (S.D.) 29.3 (8.0) 30 (8.5)

% male 93% 93%

Gambling behaviors

Range of gambling days 3 - 299 1 - 299

Mean gambling days 45 39

Median gambling days 23 16

Median bets per gambling day

5 5

Median stake per bet €7.67 €7.64

Median Odds per bet 2.49 2.49

Median actual net loss per bet

€0.67 €0.68

As gamblers approached their respective closure time, they…

•had increasing monetary loss per bet

•increased their stake per bet

•bet shorter odds per bet

•made fewer bets per day

Results Summary

Caveat

•We don’t know how much disposable income these bettors had available

•Therefore, it is not possible to calibrate the social harms that these losses might have caused

Despite the caveat about discretionary funds, the results

suggest that problem gambling is not as common among Internet

sports bettors as the conventional wisdom suggested before we

examined actual gambling behavior.

Conclusion

Don’t Translate Opinion & Gossip into

Public PolicyLet Science be Your Guide

www.divisiononaddictions.org

www.basisonline.org

www.thetransparencyproject.org

www.expressionsofaddiction.com

Thanks & Internet Resources