Factors which influence EGM player adherence to gambling spend limits
s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
Research commissioned by Gambling Research Australia Presentation by Sarah Hare
Director - Schottler Consulting Pty Ltd [email protected]
s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
Research overv iew
• Research examined factors which influence whether gamblers kept to their limits during EGM play
• Shadowing of 200 EGM players across Australia during pokies play
• Challenging method as all play transactions were recorded LIVE during play
• One of very few behavioural studies of EGM play
• Possibly the first study EVER to manually record live play transactions
• Findings revealed many insights into both EGM player behaviour and EGM player adherence to limits during play
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A. EGMB. Max EGM prize
Money IN MULTI BETS Spins/games associated with LOSSES OR WINS FREE SPINS/FEATURES WON Double up/gamble
C.
CO
INS
($)
D.
NO
TES
($)
J. Multi-credit bets
E. Money lost
F. Win $0.01-$5
G. Win $5.01-$10
H. Win $10.01-20
I. Wins more
than $20
K. Free spinswon
L. Featureswon
M. Won from free
spins/features
N. Tally O. Amountwon/lost
$
(i) NAME
(ii) DENOM1c / 2c / 5 c
(iii) AGEVery new / new / older
(iv) T/SCRNYes / No
(iv)2m radius
B1. Is this
machine a linked jackpot?(circle)
Yes / No
$ WINS
LOSSESAfter F/spinExcitement - ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Urge - ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
After Feat.Excitement - ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Urge - ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Every 5min (5=highest score)Excitement - ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ ___ _____ _____ _____
Urge - ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___
P. Songs playing?
Q. Sound of other EGM coins falling (EXCLUDING player’s)
R. Alcoholic drinksconsumed (part or full)
S. Money accessed from ATM or EFTPOS (provide $) - EVEN IF NOT SPENT
U. Money cashed OUTTOTAL $
Yes / NoWINE:BEERS:SPIRITS:
ATM:
EFTPOS:
T. OTHER ACTIVITIES or events(list each and minutes)
V. FINISH TIME -->
X. PLAY SATISFACTION (5=highest)
This shows the complexity of the data recording method! (+ a detailed survey as well)
s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
How do EGM players set thei r l imi ts?
• In addition to money limits, 80% set bet size limit, 28% time limit • 42% of problem gamblers set a bet size limit on more than 2 credits per line (versus 15% of non-problem gamblers) • At-risk gamblers were less likely to set a time limit (compared to non-problem gamblers) • When a time limit was set, problem gamblers set a higher time limit (p<.05) (81.3 v 50.3 minutes)
• Only half (52%) set their expenditure limit more than a day before play
• Problem gamblers were less likely to ‘always’ set limits (p<.001)
• Despite this, problem gamblers were also more likely to report loans (p<.05)
• Higher-risk players also tended to report fewer budget categories
• Problem gamblers were more likely to overspend household budgets (especially food, car, cigarette budgets) (p<.05)
BB
B
3734.3
31.2J
JJ
31.627.3 29.2
H H H
47.3 47.4 46.1
F
F
F
105.4
123.8
68.6
Outside venue Before play at venue After play at venue20
40
60
80
100
120
Mea
n E
GM
exp
enditure
lim
it (
$)
B Non-problem gamblers
J Low risk gamblers
H Moderate risk gamblers
F Problem gamblers
Self-reported EGM expenditure limits at three different points in time
Problem gamblers had great difficulty deciding on their limit (!)
s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
Did EGM players keep to thei r l imi ts?
• Based on observation of spending - Between 12-16% of EGM players exceeded their spend limit in a single session
• However, based on self-report – only 7% reported exceeding their spend limit
• 17% exceeded time limit (based on observation) (or 2% based on self-report)
• 7% exceeded their bet size limit (based on self-report)
• Results raise issues such as:
• How should adherence to limits be measured?
• How often and where should players set limits?
s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
Fac to rs wh ich in f luenced whether p layers kep t to spend l im i t s – Genera l fac to rs
• Players who set spend limits closer to play were more likely to not adhere to their limits (p>.05)
• Players exceeding spend limits were less likely to set a time limit (p<.05)
• 30% of players reported using ‘control strategies’ and players who didn’t report ‘control strategies’ were more likely to exceed their limit (p<.05)
• Players exceeding spend limits were less likely to notice RG signage (p<.01) and players not noticing signage were more absorbed in play (p<.05)
• Players exceeding spend limits were more likely to feel they were ‘due’ for a win (p<.01) and to report ‘chasing losses’ (p<.001) (especially after a feature!)
s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
Fac to rs wh ich in f luenced whether p layers kep t to spend l im i t s – EGM des ign fac to rs
• Players were more likely to exceed their EGM expenditure limit if they:
• Received an increased number of free spins (after moving from the 1st to 2nd EGM) (p<.001) • Were highly absorbed and involved in play (p<.05) • Reported feeling stronger urges to continue during EGM play (p<.05) • Experienced high excitement after receiving features during EGM play (p<.05)
• Findings also showed a link between speed of play and adherence to limits (p<.05)
Non-problem gamblers
Low risk gamblers
Moderate risk gamblers
Problem gamblers
Non-problem gamblers
Low risk gamblers
Moderate risk gamblers
Problem gamblers
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mea
n sp
ins
per
min
ute
5.55.2 5.3 5.1
5.55.1
7.8
12
EGM spins per minute of play (excluding free spins, features and use of double-up)
Mean spins per minute by risk for problem gambling and player adherence to precommitted spend limits
Mean spins - players who adhered to limits
Mean spins - players who did NOT adhere to limits
s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
• Recent retirement increased likelihood that players exceeded limits (p<.01)
• Players were less likely to exceed expenditure limits if they had ‘money worries’ and reported the following in past year:
• Taking on a mortgage, loan or making a large purchase (p<.01) • Experiencing daily money hassles (p<.05) • Concern over owing money or debts (p<.05) • Concern over job security (p<.05)
Fac to rs wh ich in f luenced whether p layers kep t to spend l im i t s – L i fes ty le fac to rs
Fac to rs wh ich p red ic t u rges to con t inue EGM p lay
Excitement from features
Factors which predict urge to continue during EGM play
The higher excitement ratings whenfeatures were received during play(r=.599, p<.001)
Overall play excitementThe higher the overall play excitement(r=.526, p<.001)
Loyalty points/incentivesThe more players visited venue forloyalty points/incentives (r=.214, p<.01)
Coin drops in backgroundThe more players heard coin drops inthe background (r=.196, p<.01)
Friendliness of venue staffThe friendlier the sta! were at theEGM venue (r=.178, p<.05)
Higher number of multi-creditsThe total multi-credit bets madeduring EGM play (r=.166, p<.05)
Money won - free spins/featuresThe more money won by players followingfree spins/features (r=.164, p<.05)
Tending towards significance
Excitement from free spinsThe higher the excitement ratings whenfree spins were received (r=.322, p<.01)
Player desire for wins (r=.13, p=.07) The more players had wins from $10-20(r=.272, p=.09) or 1c-$5 (r=.13, p=.07) The more spins associated with moneylost (r=.14, p=.06)
Total features during session
Total free spins during session
The more features recorded during thelive observation (r=.247, p<.001)
The total free spins recorded duringthe live observation (r=.216, p<.01)
Higher urge to continue EGM play
Controlling for risk for problem gambling
• Promotions + prizes were also linked to excitement (p<.001)
• The greater the change in excitement (from EGM1-2), the greater the urge to continue (p<.001)
s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
Other in te res t ing EGM L IVE p lay observa t ions
• Both moderate risk and problem gamblers tended to play EGMs offering higher prizes
• Problem gamblers were more likely to select linked jackpot machines (55% compared to only 41% of non-problem gamblers)
• Problem gamblers were more likely to play at hotels (69% compared to 37% of non-problem gamblers)
• Moderate risk and problem gamblers played in areas where there were fewer people
• Problem gamblers put more money on the credit meter before commencing play
• Problem gamblers made more multiple credit bets and used double-up more frequently than non-problem gamblers
s c h o t t l e r c o n s u l t i n gi n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
Conclusions
• Various aspects of EGM and venue design may be related to players exceeding limits or the urge to continue play (eg. Free spins, features, loyalty points + incentives)
• While there are many risk factors for exceeding limits, many players also have an ability to self-regulate
• Research also suggests that problem gamblers have difficulty deciding on their spend limit, have less clear household budgets + may play faster
• Highlights the need for balance and control during gambling