The hidden costs of responsible gambling initiatives

I have worked in the industry for 15 years and I can honestly say that I have never seen an operator or manager of European-licenced company that will accept an underage gambler, nor encourage someone who indicates or shows serious signs of problem gambling.

Not only are we as an industry far more moral than we are given credit for but the PR implications of a problem gambler are just too concerning, especially for a public company.

European regulators also make it very clear that continuing with a problem gambler is the quickest way for the operator to lose its licence and the management never get a job again. Basically problem gambling, while there, has been under control for a number of years.

So why is it that in the past six months the cases of closed accounts, self-imposed deposits, loss or time restrictions and closed accounts have risen so significantly in the UK?

Have UK gamblers online suddenly seen the light and realised on mass that they have serious gambling problems and need to be protected? Have we now found multiple cases of VIPs who are using proceeds of crime to gamble and have we suddenly had an influx of underage gamblers into our businesses?

Reality check

Of course, the answer is no. But the Gambling Commission, through what I honestly believe were the best intentions, have created an environment which makes it very easy for a customer to close their account.

Let me use a horseracing analogy. You go to the races, you bet ?100 on a horse you are sure is going to win and get the betting slip. Your horse starts off well you but in the last furlong it gets overtaken and comes fourth. Your sure bet has evaporated and you lost ?100.

What happens next? You get that betting slip, you scrunch it up into a ball and you throw it angrily on the floor but 10 minutes later you are calm again and bet on the next race.

That’s gambling. So does that make you a problem gambler? Of course not, it makes you frustrated about losing the bet but that’s the fun of betting so long as your initial stake is within your means i.e. disposable income.

Let’s translate this scenario online. You bet within your limits and you lose, you are frustrated for those 10 minutes and you perform the equivalent of scrunching up your betting slip. You click on ‘close my account’ which is now right in front of your eyes. You did not mean it, you are betting within your means and you want to bet again but now that 10 minutes of frustration has led you to be banned from that company for at least six months.

Do we really think you’ll never bet again? You can just open a new account with another operator until the same thing happens and so on.

Again, the industry 100% doesn’t want problem gamblers anywhere near the sector but such a massive increase in cases of problem gaming since last October hints far more towards the scenario above than a sudden realisation by customers that they have a problem.

Counting the costs

Furthermore, I don’t think this system actually helps the true problem gambler. The regulations assume that if a true problem gambler self-excludes they will stop gambling. In reality they will just move to another company and eventually to an offshore company with no self-imposed controls or rules.

I am a very strong advocate for not closing a problem gambler’s account but rather working with them to restrict their deposits, not because I want a problem gambler playing, but rather knowing that if we control their deposits to something affordable they are less likely to go elsewhere with no controls.

I am not talking about those that seek treatment, rather those that do spend more than they can afford but just move from site to site. Limiting deposits in my view is a far more effective way to control their gambling habit than pushing the self-exclusion button and move on.

And the changes do not just encourage self-exclusion. Sources of fund checks (which are very tough for an operator to do) lose legitimate VIPs, and I have heard examples of VIPs holding operators to ransom by limiting their deposits to ?1 a month until they get an extra bonus.

So to conclude, firstly I don’t believe William Hill is the only operator to suffer from a major increase in responsible gaming closures. I think it is industry-wide and I don’t believe that this was the intention of the Gambling Commission.

But more importantly I actually think that promoting self-exclusion to the level the industry is obliged to is counterproductive. It just pushes true problem gamblers constantly to new sites which will eventually be unlicensed with no controls.

Problem gambling was for the main part under control if you had a European licence. I would hope the Gambling Commission review the unintended implications of the rules soon but in the meantime it’s the operators and the problem gamblers that are suffering.