Group Self-Exclusion in Singapore?

Wouldn't it be nice if you could just join with everyone in your place of employment or place of worship to simultaneously self-exclude from gambling as a great big wagering-abstinent group? Singapore is open to introducing that option, and not just for foreign workers. The Parliamentary debate also broached the idea that Singapore should shift to an opt-in system, where every resident is excluded from the two casinos unless they jump through some hoop -- some other hoop than the current hefty entry fee. The details are here.

Illinois Update

Video gambling in non-casino locations came to Illinois in September, 2012. Eligible bars, truck stops, and other locales can host up to five video gambling terminals in an adults-only portion of their establishments. There are now more than 16,000 video gambling terminals operating in Illinois at a total of more than 4,000 establishments. There is no self-exclusion system in place for gamblers on these machines. These thousands of locations and small-scale operations are cited as reasons that a self-exclusion program would not be implementable, but the fact that the locations are adult-only means that there must already be in place a system capable of checking IDs.

The article linked above (and here) offers a few statistics on Illinois's statewide casino self-exclusion plan. In mid-April, 2014, there were more than 10,600 people on the self-exclusion list. Since the initiation of the program in 2002, "there have been 3,477 instances where self-excluded gamblers had been caught [in violation of their exclusion orders], with 3,399 of the incidents resulting in arrests." Many of these violators are caught when they win a jackpot exceeding $1,200, as the collection of such winnings requires identification. When a "winner" is found to be on the self-excluded list, he or she is not allowed to keep the jackpot. So far, casinos have "confiscated $1.5 million of winnings from self-excluded gamblers, who then get to decide which of three addiction centers their money goes to."

[The headline and the early part of the linked article might be confusing to the Self-Exclusion reader, as these refer to excluding some undesirable people from operating on the supply side of video gambling. The material on voluntary exclusions for gamblers comes later in the article.]

New Jersey Adds Internet Exclusion

In November, 2013, New Jersey became the third US state to permit gambling over the internet, following Nevada and Delaware, and the state expanded its self-exclusion program with options involving internet gambling. People on New Jersey's casino self-exclusion list automatically had their exclusion extended to internet gambling. This is in keeping with the fact that New Jersey's exclusion program does not currently allow, it seems, someone to exclude from casinos while maintaining the option to bet on the internet. The opposite configuration, where a person can exclude from the internet but not from the bricks-and-mortar casinos, is available in New Jersey, however.

New Jersey appears poised to alter its self-exclusion rules, which currently require self-excluders to confess to being a "problem gambler." There can be many motives to self-exclude, and not everyone who wants to self-exclude is a problem gambler. [I haven't checked, but my suspicion is that many jurisdictions have a similar admission required for their self-exclusion agreements. While I am engaging in uninformed speculation, I think that this language might have been thought important to provide legal protection for casinos attempting to enforce exclusion agreements. And if I can continue speculating wildly, the change in New Jersey law may have been sparked by some old fashioned journalism.]

Currently, only adults located within the state borders can engage in internet gambling. (This is true for all three of the states that currently offer legal internet gambling.) Some lawmakers in New Jersey are looking to alter that situation.

Comparative Exclusions

Population of Illinois: 12,882,135 (estimated, 2013).
Number of people in Illinois Casino Self-Exclusion Program: 9,637 (end of 2012; the Self-Exclusion Program was founded in 2002).

Population of Singapore: 5,399,200 (estimated, mid-2013).
Number of people in Singapore's Casino Self-Exclusion Program: 175,680 (late 2013; the Self-Exclusion Program -- including Family Exclusions and Third-Party Exclusions -- was begun in 2009. Some 90% of those on the excluded list are foreigners who live or work in Singapore).

Internet Gambling Self-Exclusion in the EU...and Australia?

Last week the European Parliament passed a resolution concerning the regulation of online gambling. According to this article at TimesofMalta.com, the Parliament recommends that the EU adopt an internet gambling self-exclusion system through which a gambler could exclude from all EU-state-licensed sites with one application. Further, each gambler could establish system-wide money and time limits, so that reaching the self-imposed money limit on one site could not be avoided just by going to a competing EU internet gambling provider.

Incidentally, Australia is contemplating legalizing internet gambling, and in establishing a national web gambling self-exclusion system. A second proposal is to require internet gambling sites to notify gamblers when their betting behavior is suggestive of problem gambling. Australia's new prime minister, Tony Abbott, has indicated that he does not support the previous government's efforts to make self-limitation mandatory for Electronic Gaming Machine play.

A New Low in Self-Exclusion Enforcement?

Many people who place themselves on self-exclusion lists attempt to return to casinos and gamble, in violation of their exclusion agreements, and often in the face of a potential arrest for trespassing. In the absence of regulatory oversight (or the potential for litigation), casinos would seem to have a profit incentive to turn a blind eye to these transgressions by some of their best, albeit excluded, customers. But there generally is such regulatory oversight, as Philadelphia's SugerHouse Casino found out in December, 2012, when it agreed to a $10,000 fine, in part for allowing a self-excluded gambler to gamble in its casino -- twice, with the second occasion involving a nearly four-day marathon session. The same fellow came back in February, 2013, and was uncovered by the casino as being on the excluded list as he was approaching three full days (including a nap in his car) of another protracted betting fest. Apparently he never gambled in one spot for very long, but still.... More details here and here.

Iowa Self-Exclusion is for Life

Back in April, the Iowa legislature passed an amendment to the statewide self-exclusion program that would have established the option of a five-year duration, along with the existing lifetime ban. Further, the legislation would have allowed the thousands of people who already have agreed to a lifetime exclusion to apply for revocation of their self-imposed ban once five years of ban time have elapsed. Governor Branstad was having none of it, however. In a letter accompanying his veto (pdf here), he explains that "the voluntary lifetime ban serves a valuable public purpose." The proposed rule change would still have allowed for lifetime bans going forward, so apparently the governor was objecting to the retroactive alteration of lifetime bans to five-year bans with the opportunity for gambling reinstatement. Missouri adopted an analogous rule change, complete with retroactive shortening of lifetime bans, a couple years ago. As of last month, almost 3,900 people rescinded their formerly-lifetime Missouri casino gambling bans.

Incidentally, the Iowa Lottery has a separate self-exclusion system (which prevents the collection of winnings of $600 or more), which also comes in only one duration style, that of a lifetime. I think there is something to be said to offering one and five-year exclusion options, so that self-exclusion can be more enticing for people who are not quite ready to forever renounce their in-state gambling options.

No Class-Action For Canadian Self-Excluders II

In Ontario, the Court of Appeal has affirmed earlier rulings that gamblers who self-excluded, but who were not effectively kept away from continued casino gambling, can not pursue a class action lawsuit against the casino operators, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning that potential liability was dependent on personal circumstances, so that the members of the would-be class were not sufficiently similarly situated to justify class certification. Individual lawsuits can still proceed, of course, and many in the past have led to substantial settlements.

Self-Exclusion noted the trial court ruling back in 2010, followed last year by the Court of Appeal's announcement of its willingness to hear the appeal. Here's a short video (with links to two more videos) on self-exclusion provided by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

New South Wales Expands Multi-Venue Exclusion

New South Wales (NSW) began experimenting with multi-venue exclusions more than one-year ago. Now the system is spreading state-wide, with training being provided to more than 500 gambling industry workers and counsellors this month. Gamblers can exclude from multiple gambling sites either from casino premises, or off-site. Internet-initiated multi-site self-exclusion also is on offer. One interesting (and helpful) feature of NSW self-exclusion is that the excluded gambler can choose to have a friend or relative notified of the self-exclusion agreement -- shades of the referee option in stickK.com contracts. (Unlike the system in New Zealand, these third-parties cannot initiate the exclusion process -- but NSW casinos can exclude patrons whom they believe are harming their own welfare.) 

As far as I can tell, the minimum period for self-exclusion in New South Wales is six months.  Self-exclusions can be revoked prior to their termination date (though not, presumably, prior to some minimum time period, which again might be six months -- see Appendix E of this fine report).

Punters might choose to exclude from just one venue, despite the multi-site capability. New South Wales also offers premises-specific exclusions at venues licensed for alcohol sales, even if there is no gambling -- these exclusions, of course, are aimed at people who want to control their alcohol consumption. I don't know if Australia has policies that can impose exclusion on those who have a history of alcohol-related offenses. (Britain once imposed an alcohol ban with a clause that allowed the person involved to patronize an alcohol-serving bingo hall, as long as he did not drink there.)

The Ineffectively Excluded Win the Right to Sue as a Class

Back in August, 2012, Self-Exclusion noted that the Ontario (Canada) Supreme Court was willing to hear an appeal from self-excluded gamblers as to whether they could proceed with a class-action suit. The class would consist of gamblers who placed themselves on the excluded list, but who subsequently broke their exclusion order by returning to a casino to gamble.
 
But Ontario is not the only province in Canada that is facing this issue. The British Columbia Supreme Court now has spoken on a similar case, ruling that the gamblers may indeed proceed with their class-action suit. In this instance, however, the class is not simply those who continued to gamble after self-excluding. Rather, the class is a subset of those stealthy gamblers who at some point were not allowed to collect a jackpot that they had won, once it was learned they were on the excluded list.

One of the complicating factors in this case is that originally, the forfeiture of winnings was not an element of the self-exclusion system in British Columbia. This feature was added on April 1, 2009, as a method of increasing the deterrence of gambling for those on the excluded list. The named plaintiffs in the current case self-excluded before jackpot denial was an element of the exclusion plan, but won their jackpots after the implementation of the scheme. (Though they won a few (denied) jackpots, in overall terms, both of the gamblers lost quite a bit of money gambling while excluded.)

The court decision re-iterates that the British Columbia exclusion system was constantly being tested by excluded gamblers. (Self-Exclusion noted this issue some years ago.) One of the plaintiffs was caught attempting to gamble in breach of his order some 15 times. Here is the section of the Court opinion entitled "Enforcement of the VSE Program":

[39]         As of October 2011, there were approximately 6,300 persons enrolled in the VSE program.

[40]         Until mid-June 2009, BCLC’s primary means of enforcing the VSE Program was to rely on the ability of security staff at gaming facilities to recognize VSE Program participants by sight.

[41]         In June 2009, BCLC started using license plate recognition to identify VSE Program participants. Since its introduction, this technology has led to almost 4,000 entry denials or removals of VSE Program participants.

[42]         From 2007 until October 2011, VSE Program participants were denied entry or removed from gaming facilities on more than 36,750 occasions.

[43]         Between April 1, 2009, and June 3, 2010, Jackpot Prizes were withheld from 105 VSE Program participants on 113 different occasions.

[44]         Between June 4, 2010, and July 4, 2012, a total of 187 Jackpot Prizes were withheld from VSE Program participants.

Incidentally, the jackpots that are withheld from excluded gamblers are not kept by the casino; rather, they are donated to a third party.

Note that the recent court decision remains a far cry from requiring that the old jackpots be given to excluded gamblers; it only allows them to form a class to try their luck in court. They still must show that the British Columbia Lottery Corporation breached a contract with the excluded gamblers, or behaved in an unconscionable fashion.

Committing Not to Procrastinate...

...or committing to write? A couple years ago Self-Exclusion used the example of a week-long dissertation writing-lock-in, one with $50 at stake for the volunteer participants, to muse on positive and negative commitments, commitments to do something versus commitments to refrain from doing something. A similar writing event was hosted by the University of Chicago this summer -- one of four now held every year. A new wrinkle is that the write-in was held off-campus, which presumably puts the usual quotidian distractions of the participating graduate students somewhat out of reach. After the four hours of work are complete, there's a lunchtime program:

The common barriers to writing—perfectionism and daily distractions—fall away through the program’s rigid structure and community spirit. During the lunch break, speakers from the many offices on campus that serve graduate students address common questions and problems, such as how to submit a dissertation or where to go for career advice on campus.

The community spirit angle is interesting, as it is a dimension that is missing from garden-style casino self-exclusion. It is a commonplace that gambling exclusion works better when it is paired with a treatment regimen, and perhaps the treatment in part serves as a source of social support.

Once again, $50 is at stake for the dissertation writers, and one of those lunchtime services consists of a free massage. Further, in what surely is a major incentive for U of C graduate students, those who put in the 20 hours of interruption-free work during the week receive a Latin-inscripted tee shirt:

And if the satisfaction of marching toward that PhD weren’t enough reward, the students who complete each session get a T-shirt from Graduate Student Affairs that says scribo, ergo conficiam—“I write, therefore I finish.”

Illinois Video Gaming Terminals

The state of Illinois is rolling out legal Video Gaming Terminals (VGTs); soon they will number in the thousands, placed in bars and restaurants and bowling alleys and so on. VGTs will not be available everywhere in Illinois, however, as many municipalities, including Chicago, have opted out.

The machines are limited to a payout of $500; one credit can cost no more than 25 cents, and a single play (multiple lines are available) cannot put the gambler back more than $2. (The technical standards (38-page pdf here) surprisingly make for some interesting reading: no "near misses," for instance (page 24).) But the VGTs are noted on this blog because it appears that there is no self-exclusion program connected to them -- at least I could find no mention of an applicable exclusion program at the relevant sections of the Illinois Gaming Board website. Of course, the scores of small-scale locations -- no venue can have more than 5 VGTs -- makes it harder to enforce a casino-like "no presence and no play" version of self-exclusion. But the Illinois Lottery offers a "no wins" version that is considerably easier to implement, even if it is far from foolproof: when a self-excluded player tries to collect a large win, the necessity to provide a social security number presents the enforceable moment. Why not something like that for VGTs, requiring identification, say, to collect wins of $100 or more?

Self-Exclusion as an Ineffective Substitute for Self-Control?

Gambling self-exclusion programs prominently indicate that the responsibility to avoid gambling remains with the gambler, not with the program. For example, from the state of Maryland's Voluntary Exclusion Program: "The responsibility for staying out of Maryland casinos rests solely on the individual who voluntarily excludes and not with the Maryland Lottery or any Maryland casino." This notion is in keeping with a frequent mantra in addiction treatment, that the addict must accept responsibility for his or her behavior.

I chose the Maryland program because of this article, a version of which appeared on the front page of Sunday's Baltimore Sun (September 9, 2012). The article details the process of signing up for self-exclusion, and the reactions of some of the participants. One problem the gamblers identify -- not an uncommon one -- is the difficulty of signing up for self-exclusion at a non-casino location. About 40% of the people who volunteered to be excluded from Maryland casinos are from out of state. Currently, Maryland offers only a two-year ban or a lifetime ban; reinstatement following the end of the two-year ban requires some hoop-jumping: an application for reinstatement and evidence that the gambler has received counseling.

The Sun article concludes with an interesting observation from one gambling addict:

Bill S., a 48-year-old compulsive gambler from Fells Point who attends Gamblers Anonymous meetings in Towson, is among the contingent who believe that gambling addiction cannot be dealt with by external constraints. Especially when casinos are such a small piece of legal gambling in Maryland.

"I refuse to do it on principle," Bill said. "What am I going to do? Ban myself from all the gas stations and bars? Ban myself from the grocery store? If you want to stop gambling, it has to come from inside."

Bill identifies a dilemma of sorts. While self-exclusion has shown that it can be very effective for many disordered gamblers, it is never perfectly enforced, nor can it shut the door to all wagering opportunities. (Further, many (possibly most?) problem gamblers move away from problem gambling over time, without self-exclusion or indeed without any treatment -- natural recovery is common among addicts of all stripes.) For some subset of problem gamblers, self-exclusion, even if it works in keeping them away from excluded sites, may indeed undermine their internal mechanisms for controlling their gambling, mechanisms that might be needed for those non-excluded opportunities. As John Stuart Mill noted, "In many cases, though individuals may not do the particular thing so well, on the average, as the officers of government, it is nevertheless desirable that it should be done by them, rather than by the government, as a means to their own mental education—a mode of strengthening their active faculties, exercising their judgment, and giving them a familiar knowledge of the subjects with which they are thus left to deal." Do those problem gamblers who are most susceptible to the erosion of internal control mechanisms recognize this issue, and, like Bill, refrain from self-exclusion?

Gamblefree Day and Kiwi Third-Party Exclusions

For the last eight years, September 1 has been Gamblefree Day in New Zealand, when problem gambling is highlighted. One of the methods that New Zealand has adopted to combat problem gambling is self-exclusion. The guidelines for exclusion seem very sophisticated, and they include provisions for casinos to involuntarily exclude suspected problem gamblers and for family members and other third parties to raise a call for increased scrutiny that could lead to an involuntary exclusion. As the guidelines note, "One of the most common indicators of problem gambling is notification from a relation, friend or family member of the patron." Many areas of New Zealand allow for multi-venue exclusions. In July, one locale with pokie machines was forced to turn off the machines for two days because a gambler seeking exclusion was not, in fact, excluded.

Skycity operates hotels and casinos in New Zealand. If a Skycity casino wants to exclude a suspected problem gambler, it gives the gambler a chance to voluntarily self-exclude first -- but given that a refusal to self-exclude will lead to an imposed two-year ban, it is hard to endorse the notion that such an exclusion is fully voluntary.

New Zealand also promotes responsible gambling by requiring slot machines to display a clock and the amount won or lost, along with reminders to take breaks.

Class Action Back in Play for Ontario's Self-Excluders

A couple years ago Self-Exclusion noted that a Canadian court had refused to certify Ontario's self-excluded casino gamblers as a class for the purpose of a suit against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLGC). The claim is that the OLGC neglected a duty of care to prevent the self-excluded from violating their order by returning to casinos and gambling. (The significant revenue emanating from self-excluded gamblers who continue to gamble certainly could be a spur to mixed motives on the part of casinos or taxation authorities.) The court ruled that individual lawsuits could go forward (and some have been successful, in terms of monetary settlements), but that the circumstances of the self-excluded gamblers were sufficiently diverse that class status was inappropriate. That decision from two years ago was upheld once on appeal -- but now Ontario's highest court has agreed to hear an appeal of the earlier rulings.

In 2011, Ontario rolled out facial recognition systems to help enforce self-exclusion bans.

The responsible gaming section of the OLGC website offers links to some valuable videos discussing self-exclusion, as well as videos aimed at combating common gambling fallacies.

Does Self-Exclusion Work?

This post will be updated as more "effectiveness" posts appear. I will put a link to this post on the sidebar, so that people interested in whether self-exclusion works can easily locate the relevant posts.

Does Casino Self-Exclusion Work (V)

Does Casino Self-Exclusion Work? (IV)

Does Casino Self-Exclusion Work? (III)

Does Casino Self-Exclusion Work? (II)

Does Casino Self-Exclusion Work? (I)

Does Internet Gambling Self-Exclusion Work?

All posts with label "effectiveness".

Does Internet Gambling Self-Exclusion Work?

Tobias Hayer and Gerhard Meyer were the source for a previous post on the effectiveness of casino self-exclusion. In 2011, they published an article that looked at self-exclusion from an Austrian internet gambling site (12-page pdf here). Internet gambling, in its currently fragmented state, would seem to be not all that fertile a ground for self-exclusion programs, at least those that apply to but a single e-gaming operator. Instead of having to drive to a different casino (and one owned by a different company), self-excluded e-gamblers would only have to establish an account at a different website. Further, there is some evidence that internet gamblers are more likely than bricks-and-mortar casino players to be problem gamblers. On the other hand, as internet gambling self-exclusion involves no face-to-face meetings, people concerned with their internet gambling behavior might be less shy than terrestrial gamblers about seeking out self-exclusion. (There are various routes to broader self-exclusion from internet gambling, too.)

Hayer and Meyer find that self-exclusion from a single internet casino tends to work, in the sense that gambling frequency, amounts, and problems decline following self-exclusion. The number of self-excluded gamblers who participated in the follow-up surveys is fairly small, so the results should not be relied upon too heavily. Nonetheless, the results are consistent with what we know about land-based exclusions, as well as our rudimentary pre-existing knowledge of web-gambling exclusion: internet self-exclusion seems to lead to reduced gambling problems.

Australia, Singapore, Britain Self-Exclusion Updates

(1) Australia continues to develop its program to allow gamblers to self-exclude from many venues simultaneously. They can choose whether to ban themselves from the entire club premises, or those parts of clubs where any gambling takes place, or only the rooms where pokie machines operate. (Self-Exclusion first noted this ongoing process some months ago.) The program was trialled in March, and expanded in New South Wales a couple months later. Australia is not immune from the common problem that the enforcement of self-exclusion agreements is spotty: some excluded patrons manage to gamble in violation of their agreements.

(2) Singapore is thinking of enhancing its problem gambling protections for citizens and permanent residents. "Under the proposed new regulation, any Singaporean (and [permanent resident]) who visits the casino more than five times in a given a month is considered a “high frequency” gambler. It may compel him to show that he is not in financial distress before being allowed to visit it the sixth time." (Casino visits are tracked in the Netherlands, too, and frequent gamblers are approached by staff to help assess the possibility of self-control issues and impose visit limits (see 35-page pdf here).) The linked article also notes that despite hosting only two casinos ("Integrated Resorts"), Singapore gambling revenues exceed those of Las Vegas, trailing only Macau on that metric. Singaporean locals have to pay a per-visit casino entrance fee of about $80, or purchase an annual casino pass for approximately $1600.

(3) The manifold shortcomings of the enforcement of self-exclusion in Britain are noted in this article. A bounty system for staff who identify a self-excluded gambler might be one element of improved enforcement.

Aussie Responsible Gambling Awareness Week

Australians gamble more than just about anyone else; click on the chart at this link for some flavor of the data. Responsible Gambling Awareness Week in Australia ended on May 20; here's some information from Victoria, with links at the bottom to activities in other states. Presumably because of the Awareness Week, media reports on problem gambling in Australia are blossoming: from NPR, and from some Aussie sources, too. In Tasmania, there is a move afoot to limit pokie bets to $1 per play. A gambling addict gave evidence on the $1 limit to a legislative committee. "He recommended the committee spend an hour inside a poker machine room at a pub or club. 'Watch them leave their souls at the door,' he said." One Tasmanian gambling reformer suggests a little physical nudge: don't let pokie players sit down.

Ohio Casino Self-Exclusion Kicks Off...

...and it has its first client: "He has proudly framed his letter from the commission notifying him that he’s barred from the casinos. He keeps it next to a photo of his deceased father, who had urged him to stop gambling." He has remained bet-free for more than 500 days.

The Ohio program allows gamblers to exclude for one year, five years, or for life. People who violate their exclusion order are subject to arrest and the loss of any winnings. When an exclusion order serves its time and expires, the reinstatement of gambling privileges requires that the gambler take the positive step of filling out a form to request reinstatement -- the default is continued exclusion. Sounds to me like Ohio has a good set of self-exclusion regulations.

The linked article indicates that Caesars Entertainment, which is operating the just-opened Cleveland casino, offers its own self-restriction program, along with self-exclusion. Self-restriction prevents the gambler from receiving marketing materials, and enjoins the casino from offering services such as credit or cashing checks to restricted customers. It appears that restrictees can choose more constraining rules, too.