Problem Gambling Needs To Be A Priority In States Expanding Gambling

States are scrambling to plug budget holes caused by the novel Coronavirus shutdowns. One revenue opportunity is gambling expansion, which was already a hot topic in state legislatures before COVID-19. But gambling policy isn’t something states should rush into.

We saw the ramifications of rushed policy when states began legalizing sports betting, including mobile sports wagering. The downfall of PASPA led to an impressive amount of legislation, and several different approaches, almost all of which were criticized in one way or another.  

One policy that is a consistent glitch in the system is the lack of attention to responsible gaming and problem gambling. And that could be exacerbated in the coming months as states become laser-focused on revenue.

That isn’t to say responsible gaming and problem gambling policies don’t exist (although that can sometimes be the case), rather, the policies put in place are often minimal and unoriginal.

That’s unfortunate. While every other aspect of the industry is evolving at a lightning pace, RG and PG seem to be stuck in neutral. And it’s time for an overhaul.

Opt-Out not Opt-In

To be fair, the legalization of online gambling has brought about one positive change to responsible gaming policies in the US: responsible gaming tools accessible through a player’s account.

From deposit and time limits to cooling-off periods, online gamblers have a lot of options at their fingertips to customize their betting experience. The downside is customers have to opt-in to access these controls.

Here’s why that should be changed to opt-out, which can happen at registration or at some other point in the customer’s time on the site.

A switch from opt-in to opt-out means that instead of a customer reactively setting limits and thereby acknowledging a problem, customers would simply remove what they believe are unnecessary restrictions by making the proactive choice to increase their limits. That simple change will not only ensure that all customers are aware of the responsible gaming tools available, but it will also help destigmatize the acknowledgement of problem gambling.

Making these tools opt-in forces someone to tacitly admit they have a problem, and that’s something many people (particularly those in the early stages of addiction) are reticent to do. 

Use a Scalpel Not an Ax

Self-exclusion is the cornerstone of responsible gambling policies. Unfortunately, because it’s an all-or-nothing proposition in most locales, the act of self-exclusion is seen as a last-ditch option for someone wrestling with a possible gambling addiction.

And even more so than setting limits, self-exclusion carries the stigma (there’s that word again) of out of control addiction, A personal failing. And it should be nothing of the sort.

Essentially, the current structure of self-exclusion pushes the decision off until the addiction has spiraled out of control.

Customers should be able to exclude from different forms of gambling and for a personally selected period. That’s not how it works in most jurisdictions, where self-exclusion covers all types of gambling offered by that entity (more on that in a minute) and is typically limited to lifetime bans.

Not having customized options works to keep people from self-excluding. Offering a three-month, six-month, 12-month, three-year, five-year, and lifetime bans would almost certainly appeal to a broader swathe of players and help nip bad habits in the bud before a person falls deep into debt.

Even more absurd, to self-exclude from all available gambling options in their area, a person choosing to self-exclude has to go through the process multiple times.

Just like there isn’t an a la carte self-exclusion, there isn’t a blanket self-exclusion either.

For example, to eliminate all gambling possibilities within a two hours’ drive, a customer in Massachusetts would need to self-exclude from a dozen or more places. There’s the Massachusetts Lottery, the Rhode Island Lottery, The Connecticut Lottery, every casino in each state, as well as DraftKings, FanDuel, and other DFS sites.

And it gets worse when viewed nationally. Keith Whyte, the executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling often notes there are nearly 1,000 regulatory agencies overseeing gambling in the US.

Everything about the self-exclusion process (I didn’t even get into the recidivism rate and how self-exclusion is a prohibition on winning, not gambling) is handled poorly. But it doesn’t have to be. Self-exclusion should be highly customizable and brought under a single umbrella.

Try Things

If you have kids, you know that it’s crucial they try different things lest they become picky eaters or overly nervous about new experiences. When it comes to responsible gaming, the gaming industry often acts like the coddled child. It’s not into taking chances.

Unfortunately, it needs to.

That’s precisely what Massachusetts did when it legalized casino gambling. The state decided to force operators (kicking and screaming) into two responsible gaming programs, GameSense and PlayMyWay. One has been successful, and the jury is still out on the other.

But even if both programs were failures, I would still point to them as the right way to tackle responsible gaming and problem gambling.

Here’s why.

The current thinking around RG and PG is stale. Operators are scared of implementing new programs that might cut down on play, and the vast majority of lawmakers and regulators are apathetic to this facet of the gaming industry, and go along with the industry’s “experienced’ point of view. That’s not unexpected since less money for the industry means less tax revenue for the state.

Online gambling has done two things:

• As noted above, it’s brought about limit-setting and other RG initiatives
• It’s provided researchers with far more data and information to pore through

Now it’s time for the industry writ large to start experimenting with new RG solutions. Something European countries are doing, including using technology to anonymously track betting behaviors for signs of problem gambling.

Funding For Problem Gambling Research and Responsible Gaming Initiatives

There’s no need to argue this final point: More funding for problem gambling research and responsible gaming initiatives is required from the industry, as well as from the states that profit from gambling. Hard stop.

If you want to understand why, these articles are a good place to start:

• Responsible Gambling Collaborative says ‘those who profit’ from gaming need to fund research, treatment
• Finding Funding: State support of responsible gaming treatment programs is lagging, but there is hope

And here’s what we’re doing on this front: BettingUSA.com Dedicates 1% for Responsible Gambling