Study into Responsible Gambling Features shows only a compulsory card system will work

Focal Research in Nova Scotia, Canada has released research assessing the effectiveness of responsible gambling features in Video Lottery Terminals (the equivalent of our poker machines) which shows that warning messages about time on the machine and allowing the player to set session time limits were not effective for the majority of gamblers.

They recommended that the focus must be on managing spend and the introduction of a interactive card based system.

The results of the current study continue to reinforce the difficulties inherent in offering responsible gaming features that are not interactive. All of the critical factors influencing player success in engaging in responsible gaming are related to his or her personal ability to exercise control over the amount of time and money spent on the activity when engaged in play. The evidence consistently indicates that “impaired control” is a normal characteristic of play and, therefore, for many individuals, has a negative impact on the decision making process during the play session. Effective RGFs are those that allow the individual to enact and enforce personally relevant play decisions before they are involved in the games. The only way that effective, enforceable responsible gaming features can be offered on the terminals is through a central operating system that will allow individual players to be recognized and interact wih the system (e.g., a player card system). The ability of the player to monitor their VL activity, set limits or restrict access at the machine level is the ultimate empowerment model for responsible gaming and appears to be the ideal “tool” to assist players in managing their play.

Why is every major researcher in this field coming up with the same recommendation? Why are some more responsible industry operators admitting that identification of individuals or card based systems are required? Simply because it is blatantly obvious that this is the solution to reducing problem gambling and detecting problems earlier. It won't eliminate problem gambling - that unfortunately in impossible - but it will reduce it by strengthening self-exclusion, ensuring players are aware of their gambling behaviour in terms of number of sessions, time and money spent, and empowering players to make decisions before they are in throws of a gambling session which may impair their judgement. It allows a fail-safe where players can exercise a choice but through delaying the enabling of the decision, poor decisions made in the heat of the moment can be avoided.

If the question is about choice, let them make the choice between gambling or not. If they want to gamble they have to obtain a card which must be inserted into the machine to gamble. If you make it tied to the loyalty system it becomes a win-win situation - operators get information about players, players earn points which can be redeemed for prizes, meals etc. and the community benefits through reduced problem gambling.

Why does this not make sense to some people?

GG