91����ԭ��

In the world of gambling, player protection is a crucial concept aimed at creating safe, socially responsible, and supportive environments for players. Known by various names such as responsible gambling, safer gambling, and gambling harm minimisation, player protection seeks to ensure that gambling remains a form of entertainment while minimising potential harm.

This blog delves into the effectiveness of player protection measures, exploring whether they truly work and the importance of evaluating these initiatives. Read on to unpack the complexities of player protection and discuss the latest trends and regulations shaping the gambling industry.

What is Player Protection?

Player protection is not a new thing in gambling, and is known by a variety of different names such as responsible gambling, safer gambling and gambling harm minimisation. There is no official definition of player protection, but the following is one I like:

Trying to provide safe, socially responsible and supportive gambling environments in which people can enjoy gambling as a form of entertainment and the potential for harm is minimised.

Does Player Protection Work?

Something my colleague at 91����ԭ��, Gareth Owens and I recently discussed in a webinar was if player protection actually works? I mentioned to Gareth that in my opinion we would only really know the answer to this question if player protection measures and initiatives are carefully evaluated by the gambling industry.

Let’s expand on this point. In a responsible gambling panel discussion he moderated at the IMGL autumn conference in October, and a comment about the potential unintended consequences of player protection initiatives, Dr. Simon Planzer cited the example of the famous Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. In this study, “pre-delinquent,” under-privileged boys in Massachusetts, USA were subject to a program designed to prevent delinquency referred to as “directed friendship.” The preventive intervention involved individual counselling through a wide range of activities and home visits. Boys in the treatment group received the program for a mean average of 5.5 years, whereas boys in the control group did not receive any special services. The program finished in 1945.

A 30-year post-intervention follow-up revealed the following program effects. Comparisons between the treatment and control groups indicated that the treatment group had not done better on any outcome, and had actually done worse on a number of key outcomes. The treatment group men were significantly more likely to:

• Commit more than one crime (among those who committed at least one crime)
• Suffer symptoms of alcoholism
• Manifest signs of mental illness
• Die at a younger age (prior to 35)
• Suffer from at least one stress-related disorder, especially high blood pressure or heart trouble
• Report their work as unsatisfying

So, while well-intentioned the program had not been able to prevent delinquency in the treatment group and in some ways had actually made the situation worse.

How does the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study apply to gambling?

While the study was focussed on preventing delinquency in boys, the principle behind it can also be applied to player protection in gambling. No matter how well-intentioned a gambling operator, regulator or government’s player protection initiative is, there is no guarantee that it will have a ‘positive’ impact in terms of player protection, or that it will not have unintended consequences. Therefore, any player protection initiative, e.g. affordability checks must be carefully evaluated to assess both its impact and any consequences resulting from it.

Do player protection initiatives currently receive a detailed evaluation or assessment?

I am not sure of the answer to this question, but I suspect it may vary depending on the jurisdiction in question. What I am sure about is that over the last two years I have seen many media releases announcing new player protection laws, regulations, guidelines, policies and initiatives. However, I can’t remember ever seeing a gambling operator, regulator of government, announce the withdrawal of a player protection initiative, due to it not having the impact they anticipated or an unintended consequence.

While part of the reason for this may be due to a desire not to publicise bad news, I still think it raises doubts about how rigorously player protection initiatives are evaluated and analysed, and how regularly they are amended or discontinued based as a result of such an evaluation.

Financial risk checks in the UK

In the UK, the gambling commission has announced a two-stage implementation process for "frictionless, light touch financial vulnerability checks". The gambling commission has said that with their frictionless financial risk assessments they want to prevent some of the serious cases they have seen where customers were able to spend large amounts in short spaces of time without any checks.

While the gambling commission has initially implemented financial risk checks through a pilot, enabling the commission to test the details of data-sharing in practice, I am not aware that they have yet released details as to how the impact of the checks will be assessed or evaluated.

Potential unintended consequences of financial risk checks

Without the ability to see into the future nobody can be sure of the impact of gambling financial risk checks in the UK? However, one potential unintended consequence could be that some online customers are deterred from betting with regulated gambling operators and instead turn to unregulated operators who don’t carry out such financial risk checks.

Hopefully this scenario will not happen, and financial risk checks will enhance player protection in the way the gambling commission intends, but how will we know unless a detailed evaluation of the impacts of these checks is carried out and made public?

While I really hope that player protection does work and player protection initiatives really can create more socially responsible and supportive gambling environments, I don’t think we will have an answer until more analysis and evaluation of player protection initiatives is carried out and made public. Finally, I would like to thank Dr Planzer for making me aware of this important issue, and for inspiring me to write this article.

‍

Want to know more?

Watch our recent webinar on demand, Player Protections: Navigating the Regulatory Landscape, or download your copy of our Player Protection Outlook for a deeper dive into the policy trends affecting rules and expectations around player protection across the globe.