Online Gambling - easg.org 3... · • Monitoring online gambling behavior at a relatively little expense (Adami et al., 2013). • Record players’ individual gambling behavior

Online Gambling: A critical review of behavioural tracking research

Bernardo Chagas:

EASG - 11th European Conference on Gambling Studies and Policy Issues

I. Objectives

II. Approaches to Online Gambling Gambling Research

III. Gambling Involvement and Gambling Intensity

IV. Social Responsibility and Player Protection Measures

V. Advantages and Limitations of Tracking Data Internet Gambling

Behavior Research

VI. Discussion and Further Research


BRIEF OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION

MAIN OBJECTIVE:

• to review and analyze the literature that use tracking data to study the gambling behavior of online players

Other objectives:1. Understand if the observation of real gambling behavior provides:

• relevant outputs for the creation of gambling products and effective responses for player protection

• determine if player safety and responsible gambling procedures have benefited from these new methods of research

2. Highlight some of the gaps found in literature of tracking data online gambling research and contribute to current debate.


Internet gambling has generated many concerns such as:(Griffiths & Parke, 2002; Griffiths, 1999; Labrie, 2007)

• accessibility to gambling• fast action play• the inability to protect underage and problem gamblers• the inability to restrict unprincipled marketing techniques • the capacity to prevent gambling while intoxicated • unknown product safety level warrant• gambling at work


Is Behavioral Tracking Gambling Research the answer to these concerns?

1. Gambling operators have today the ability to track customer playing behavior

2. To some researchers the scientific shift from self-report to observed behavior represents a methodological paradigm change for the field of gambling studies (Shaffer et al., 2010)

3. Can players benefit from interventions based in this type of research? (Griffiths, 2013)

4. Tracking data research has advantages but also some disadvantages, such as in other methods used in gambling research (Griffiths, 2013)


APPROACHES TO ONLINE GAMBLING RESEARCH

1. Gambling behavior has been extensively studied and much has been published on the subject• the vast majority of the research relies on self-reported or case study.

2. With the advent of the internet, it has become possible for researchers to observe real behavior of online gamblers resorting to tracking data.

3. It is important to explore new sources of information, methodologies and approaches to be able to enrich discussion and contribute to a better understanding of this field. • Most studies found on actual playing behavior result from one database (Bwin Interactive

Entertainment) • Recently more studies have been published with the use of other tracking database information

win2day; I´slensk Getspa; Betchoice/Unibet; GTECH and GTECH G2; Online Poker Database of The University of Hamburg (OPD-UHH) - Germany; Pokerstars)


Behavioral Tracking Gambling Data


Griffiths (2013)

• Account data (user ID, DoB, gender, postal codes).• Game data(game ID, game type, amount of winnings, amount of money spent, number

of bets/spins)• Financial data (amount of deposits, number of money withdrawals, number of

accounts).• Responsible gaming limit data(time and spend limits, changes of limits)• Miscellaneous data (length of playing session, login information, number of cool-off

periods

GAMBLING INVOLVEMENT AND INTENSITY

There are different ways, gambling intensity and involvement can be measured and assessed.

• intensity - amount risked by a player, or theoretical loss (Auer and Griffiths, 2013)• involvement - Bet size’ and ‘number of games played’ (Broda et al. 2008; LaBrie et al. 2008; LaPlante et al.

2008, 2009; Nelson et al. 2008; Dragicevic et al. 2011)

Theoretical Loss (Auer& Griffiths, 2013)

• Both Bet size an number bets are unsuitable as they do not reflect the intensity of play uniformly across different games and game type

• Theoretical Loss is a more stable and reliable measure of gaming intensity across different game types (Auer and Griffiths, 2013)

• For shorter periods of time, theoretical loss is the most stable measure of gambling intensity as it is not distorted by gamblers’ occasional wins

• Bet size does not equate to or explain theoretical loss as it does not take into account the houseadvantage.


GAMBLING INVOLVEMENT AND INTENSITY

Braverman & Shaffers’s (2013) Response to Auer & Griffiths

• Contrary to Auer and Griffiths claim, none of the studies focusing on Internet gambling claimed to use bet size (i.e., total wagered) as a proxy for gambling intensity • (Braverman et al. 2011; Braverman and Shaffer 2012; Dragicevic et al. 2011;

LaBrie et al. 2008; LaPlante et al. 2008, 2009; Nelson et al. 2008)

• Although these investigators used a variety of variables to describe betting patterns, they never claimed that bet size alone was a proxy for gambling intensity


At Risk, High Involvement and Excessive Gambling

1. When players exceed what is considered to be the normal gambling activity, they may be considered to be at risk of developing gambling problems or they may already be heavily involved in excessive gambling activities

2. The identification of such thresholds has been a challenge for researchers and a recurrent topic on gambling research

3. Early detention of problem gambling has been a possible solution some researchers have tried to explore.

• identify at-risk (high- and medium-risk) gamblers in the early period of active betting • They identified two markers of gambling.

• rapid drop in wager size over a wide range of fluctuation periods - players’ exceeding their economic sustainability limits.

• number of games a player simultaneously - predicting possible consequences of an exceeding amount of time dedicated to gambling (Adami et al., 2013).


SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PLAYER PROTECTION MEASURES

1. Online gambling allows the implementation of preventive measures such as players’ own pre-commitment and self-limitation, which are arguably easier to implement than in off line or land-based gambling venues (Dragicevic et al., 2011).

2. Additional measures include self-exclusion and deposit and loss limit setting which are now a part of the player protection process featured in responsible gaming codes of practice and online gaming operators social responsibility measures (Auer & Griffiths, 2013; Dragicevic et al., 2013).

3. Player protection tools: • PlayScan (Svenska Spel); Observer (888.com); Mentor; BetBuddy

4. Are such measures really effective in long term gambling behavior? (Auer & Griffiths, 2013; Dragicevic et al. 2013).


Self-limitation, Account Closing and Other Responsible Gaming Measures

One of the social responsibility measures made available today by online gambling providers is the voluntarily self-setting of time and money limits.

Self-limitation• Limits can be set on deposits, play limits, loss limits and bets placed. (Auer & Griffiths, 2013)

• Deposit limits - maximum amount of money that a player can deposit into their play account at any given time.

• Play limits - maximum amount of money that a player can actually play with at any given time. • Loss limits refer to the maximum amount of money that a player is allowed to lose at one

session and • Bet limits is the maximum amount of money that can be bet on a single game, or on

concurrent games


Account Closing• There are other measures that operators also make available to protect players from engage in excessive

gambling which is the possibility of closing their own account. • self-exclusioners either tend to wager more overall or place riskier bets (Dragicevic et al., 2013)

• Two types of account closers (LaBrie & Shaffer, 2011). • dissatisfaction with the service or losing interest in playing.

• gambling-related problems (half of the account closers) • distinct pattern of sports-betting behavior

• larger bets, • bet more frequently, • more likely to exhibit intense betting soon after enrollment

Pop-ups messages • aim to alert players to excessive gambling and to limit or reduce gambling behavior.

• the introduction of a mandatory pop-up message has a positive effect in deterring gambling behavior (Auer, Malischnig& Griffiths, 2014)


Ethical Issues


Griffiths & Whitty (2010)

• Behavioral tracking suggest that problem gambling can be identified without the need to assess the negative psychosocial consequences of problem gambling.

• Identify behaviors showing tendencies of problem gaming even though empirical research may not yet have discovered them

• Gamblers are unknowingly passing on information about themselves (issues on informed consent and invasion of the gambler’s privacy)

• Companies should start using their large behavioral tracking data sets to help identify problem Gamblers and not just for marketing purposes

• Problem gambling research should address the interaction between the vulnerable individual, the gambling products, and the gambling environment and not solely on individual risk factors (Griffiths, 2009)

15

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF ACTUAL INTERNET GAMBLING BEHAVIOR RESEARCH

Advantages

Gambling research has undoubtedly benefited from the study of actual playing behavior by analyzing real gambling data.

• Opportunity to examine the actual and real-time behavior engaged in by gamblers on a website (Griffiths & Auer, 2011)

• Monitoring online gambling behavior at a relatively little expense (Adami et al., 2013).

• Record players’ individual gambling behavior to later analyze such behavior (Griffiths & Auer, 2011; Auer and Griffiths, 2014).

• Allowing the analysis of big data in large sample sizes (Auer and Griffiths, 2014).

• Analysis of the actual environment and conditions under which gamblers place wagers.

• Objective record of individual’s gambling behavior on the where the data was drawn from

• It also offers researchers the possibility of being in different geographical location than participants and peers which allows multicultural research and makes the research process easier to perform (Griffiths, 2010).


16

• Gaming addictions - can be useful in gathering rich and sensitive information (Griffiths, 2010).

• Can be relevant not only for the study of player behavior but to also provide helpful insights for public policy makers (Shaffer et al, 2010)

Other Advantages are based in the difference between actual behavior research and other methods such as self-reporting.

• Self reporting:

• does not allow researchers to assess longitudinal gambling behavior,

• does not allow players to risk their own money – such reality is possible with actual gambling behavior analysis (Peller, LaPlante and Shaffer, 2008).

• memory-errors or unreliable memory (Shaffer et al., 2010; Griffiths & Auer, 2011)

• self-presentation strategies, simple miscomprehension, (Shaffer et al., 2010).

• possible biases in sampling (Shaffer et al., 2010).


17

Limitations

1. Representativeness - Players might not be representative of the customer base of a particular website, as well as other providers or even of the entire online gambling community (Brosowski, Mayer and Hayer, 2012; Griffith, 2013).

2. The analyzed period of a specific study might not be representative of the typical behavior (LaBrie et al., 2007).

3. Data is usually drawn from one website and players tend to, or might play in various websites (Auer and Griffiths, 2014, Adami et al., 2013; Griffiths, 2012, Dragicevic et al., 2011, 2013; Fiedler, 2011; Shaffer et al., 2010).

4. Players might also use different player accounts within the same website (Fiedler, 2011) or play in land-based or offline venues (Adami et al., 2013; Dragicevic et al., 2011, 2013; LaBrie et al. 2007; Xuan and Shaffer, 2009).

5. The player account might be used by more than one person (Shaffer et al., 2010; Fiedler, 2011; Griffiths, 2012; Auer and Griffiths, 2014).


18

Limitations

6. Researchers are dependent on subscriber’s self-reported demographic information to characterize payers - the information provided might not be always be correct (Griffiths, 2010; Shaffer et al., 2010).

7. Marketing campaigns and other factors might also influence gamblers acquisition and player registry (Brosowski, Mayer and Hayer, 2012; LaBrie et al., 2007; LaBrie and Shaffer, 2011).

8. Players’ clinical characteristics, perceptions, and the consequences of their gambling behavior are also difficult to evaluate

9. Other limitations of this method are related to the fact that actual gambling data does not explain why people gamble or why they engage in a particular online activity (Griffiths, 2012).


19

DISCUSSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH

1. The analysis of tracking data was found to greatly contribute to understand player behavior, despite existing limitations and problems.

2. Future research - the integration of findings from studies of actual gambling behavior with self-report data (Adami et al. 2013; Dragicevic et al. 2011; Shaffer at al. 2010).

• can be used to identify players’ clinical characteristics, perceptions, or the social consequences associated with their betting behavior which,

3. In another approach, the integration of both methods can include the examination of the psychologicalcharacteristics of subscribers.

4. Identification of Behavioral markers

5. Development /improvement of RG /player feedback tools


Bernardo Chagas [email protected]

Thank you!

Questions?


Documents

Online Gambling - easg.org 3... · • Monitoring online gambling behavior at a relatively little expense (Adami et al., 2013). • Record players’ individual gambling behavior