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.

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.)

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.

Aussie Pokies Controversy Boosts Self-Limitation and Self-Exclusion

We noted last month how the push for mandatory betting limits in Australia was, perhaps inadvertently, promoting enhanced self-exclusion as a sort of compromise from opponents of the mandatory limits. Voluntary self-limitation is another policy that is garnering support:

Australia's biggest pokies operator Woolworths has lobbied the federal opposition to tackle problem gambling with voluntary pre-commitment measures, despite the limited success of its own trial of optional bet limit cards....At last year's Woolworths annual general meeting, it was revealed only 11 per cent of registered players had taken up an offer of voluntary cards under the ALH trial, which started in 2009.

Eleven percent seems fairly significant to me. Meanwhile, in New South Wales, the potential to self-exclude from multiple venues, and to do so over the internet, also is being introduced:

WITH just the click of a button, problem gamblers living anywhere in NSW will be able to use a secure website to ban themselves from their local clubs....The technology allows problem gamblers to complete a legally binding self exclusion document in the presence of a gambling counsellor or a trained facilitator at their local club. Previously the individual had to visit each club individually.

Additionally, the problem gambler can now choose to ban themselves from multiple clubs rather than the time consuming process of visiting each venue and repeating the process time and again. Problem gamblers are provided with the following self-exclusion options: banning from the club, banning from any area of the club with poker machines and banning from any area of the club where gambling takes place such as poker machines, Keno and ClubTAB.

The internet sign-up is probably an upgrade over an earlier, unfortunate suggestion from Victoria, Australia, that those seeking to self-exclude call a hotline that, uh, promotes betting.

Self-Exclusion as a Substitute for Mandatory Limits?

The Australian government is attempting to require that all players of "pokies" (electronic gaming machines) at clubs and pubs choose an expenditure limit. When they hit that limit, the players would have to wait (24 hours?) before they could resume gambling. The Australian loyal opposition is looking into alternative measures, including a national self-exclusion system. Perhaps more controversial is the possibility of third-party or family exclusions, where someone can be barred from gambling following an application not from the gambler him or herself, but from a close family member. Of course, family exclusions already exist in Singapore -- and in Australia! Another measure that the opposition is considering is to remove ATM access at gambling locales for would-be punters on the exclusion list. The inquiry by the Australian opposition is slated to be completed by the end of the month.

Mandatory Gambling Limits in Australia?

Electronic gaming machines in Australia are slated to be retrofitted with card readers or other devices that will be able to keep track of a player's wagers. The idea is to enforce limits to gambling -- and it will be mandatory for gamblers to pre-specify those limits, at least if the central government gets its way. The proposal is meeting significant opposition, with pubs, clubs, and hotels that host gaming machines involved in the backlash. One of the animating developments behind the "mandatory pre-commitment" movement is the 2010 Productivity Commission report on gambling that (once again) showed the extent to which profits drawn from electronic gaming machines come from problem gamblers. From Chapter 5 (pdf here) of the report:

"Based on available survey data, there are between 80 000 and 160 000 Australian adults suffering significant problems from their gambling (0.5 to 1.0 per cent of adults), with a further 230 000 to 350 000 experiencing moderate risks that may make them vulnerable to problem gambling (1.4 to 2.1 per cent of adults).

Although there are substantial difficulties in calculating gambling expenditure, it is estimated that problem gamblers account for 22 to 60 per cent of total gaming machine spending (average of 41). The likely range for moderate risk and problem gamblers together is 42 to 75 per cent."

Will Problem Gamblers Self-Limit?

Self-exclusion and self-limit programs are aimed at people who have, or fear they might have, self-control problems with wagering. Most of the people who choose to self-exclude do seem to be problem or pathological gamblers. But if you offer a voluntary self-limiting program -- say, the option of making a commitment prior to entering a casino to spend no more than $x there (where the gambler can choose x) -- will people who have gambling problems choose to participate? A recent study by Lia Nower and Alex Blaszczynski suggests that problem gamblers might not be all that eager to take part.

The study looks at 127 adults who, on their way into an Australian casino, agreed to fill out questionnaires. Based on the ensuing self-reports, 20 of these people were categorized as problem gamblers. When asked about whether they would take advantage of "smart card" technology that would allow them to limit their monetary exposure once inside the casino, the problem gamblers were less likely than everyone else to endorse the use of such cards. Further, the problem gamblers who were willing to use the cards were more likely to want the cards to be flexible, so that additional funds could be accessed during a single session or additional cards purchased. This relative reluctance to limit gambling losses is indicated despite the fact that problem gamblers also were the most likely to lose track of their monetary situation (money won or lost) during a gambling session.

Many gamblers who self-exclude do so only after wagering has wreaked havoc upon their lives. Does a lack of sophistication by problem gamblers about their own future self-control issues suggest the desirability of a mandatory regime of limit setting, such as that maintained at Svenska Spel's internet poker facility?