It’s not just common decency, Edward Howarth, Lead writer for DashTickets, claims, it should be a legal requirement. The casino should be able to identify a problem gambler and, upon detection, should refuse service to such an individual, as tempting it is to accept his unreasonably sized bet.
Howarth, an expert in casino player psychology now employed by the largest New Zealand gambling website DashTickets, has worked for the casinos and claims they definitely possess the ability to track players and detect problem gamblers. “It’s what they do for a living”, Howarth says. “They make the bulk of their income from deciding which players to target. It’s been like that since casinos came to be, and modern technology made it a breeze to track every player’s bet and to have software – soon AI – profile the player”.
On 23 August 2024, consultation for draft strategy to prevent and minimise gambling harm 2025/26 to 2027/28 by New Zealand’s Ministry of Health opened and it will end on 6 October. The government is taking steps to reduce gambling harm before they open up the New Zealand market to 15 licence holders some time in 2026. Problem gamblers are always the focus of such strategies.
Most players don’t have a problem with gambling, Howarth says. “Especially in New Zealand, where we have a healthy stance towards gambling and are quite experienced with it. Most players see gambling as a pastime and don’t expect to win – and definitely don’t try to win the money back”.
However, there are players that try to win the money back and will do whatever it takes. These constitute the group known as problem gamblers. When you have an intent to win – on a game of chance – that’s a problem. “At some point, you tell the guy at the bar, hey mate, you’ve had too much to drink, I won’t serve you anymore. That’s exactly what the casino must do when a player has lost too much too quickly. No one asks the casino to give the money back, but at some point they got to say, hey mate, enough is enough, you’re killing yourself”, Howarth says.
Casinos prefer to keep the problem gamblers playing
It has been estimated that 80% of casino’s income comes from 20% of its players, and most of those players are problem gamblers that are making unreasonable decisions with increasingly larger sums of money as they try to win the money back. Often, this happens with the aid of the casino that has emailed the problem gambler with another special bonus just for them, in order to keep them playing and give them false hope that they can win their lost money back.
Without any doubt, problem gamblers are the bread and butter of any casino’s bottom line, the best type of customer. From a government’s perspective, it is this type of player that is in most need of protection. This leads Edward Howarth to conclude that the eternal battle between the regulator and the casino is actually fought over this particular type of player, and little else.
Numerous regulatory bodies have banned the use of the word “free” when it comes to advertising gambling promotions, unless something is indeed free, which it never is. There are also restrictions on advertising near schools, on sporting events, and so on. While this may seem like it’s aimed at the general wellbeing, it is actually aimed at reducing exposure to vulnerable groups and being more honest with vulnerable people. In essence, this too is aimed at reducing the production of more problem gamblers by attacking the problem in the root – advertising.
United Kingdom puts the onus on the operator
The United Kingdom Gambling Commission, the strongest gambling regulatory body on the planet, is the only one so far that has taken the step to put the responsibility on the operator. The operators in the UK are not allowed to accept bets from problem gamblers, and if the investigation shows that they did, they are facing huge fines in millions of pounds, and some have even lost their licence to do business in the UK. It’s up to the operator to accurately and timely detect a problem gambler, or risk a penalty down the line.
As UKGC’s experience and the never ending battle against the operators regarding compliance with regulation shows, even despite knowing the rules and knowing that you can be fined and lose a licence, the operators still push forward as far as they can. This gives little hope to a less involved regulator that would simply set the rules and then not police them.
In September 2023, In Touch Games had their licences for 10 casino brands suspended. In May 2023, Paddy Power and Betfair, were fined £490,000 for sending promotional push notifications to devices linked to customers who had previously self-excluded. In January 2024, Gamesys (Bally) was fined £6 million for social responsibility and AML failings, and here is a description of the exact five cases that triggered the alarm.
- no risks were identified when one customer deposited £8,255 within three days of opening an account, another lost £5,968 within five weeks of opening account and another lost £17,482 within 34 days of opening an account
- only interacting with one customer once they had lost almost £10,000, and that ‘responsible gambling interaction’ involved the recommendation of new games and promotions
- carrying out only one responsible gambling interaction with a consumer who lost £19,709 over five months
It becomes quite evident why the casinos may be having second thoughts about giving that person a phone call and saying “hey, maybe you should stop”.
But it’s this decision on which course of action to take with that player in that precise moment is what the UKGC is focusing on. Because it’s this precise moment that has the most to do with player protection. If the operator “forgets” to intervene, then it is perfectly understandable for the operator to be fined for a larger amount that they won from the player who’s having a problem.
Self-exclusion works
A lot of people who have a gambling problem feel the urge to stop at some point. Most casinos have some sort of a self-exclusion mechanism, but it only works if there’s a country-wide system that excludes you from all known gambling facilities. Otherwise you can walk straight into the next one or click the link to the next one. In the UK, this scheme is called GAMSTOP, and all licensed casinos must participate in the scheme and must be actively compliant to it, and must not market to self-excluded players.
Cath Healey has recently said in a DashTickets interview that stronger player protection mechanisms, one of which is self-exclusion from all online casinos in one go, is a proactive approach that would help players, as opposed to having an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
Should the government intervene at all?
Some people say that government intervention in personal choices equals nanny state, and the proponents will always mention vehicle seat belts as government-enforced decisions that all traffic participants are obliged to adhere to without fail.
In the case of gambling, the government should definitely intervene if a casino is knowingly targeting a problem gambler, particularly one that has self-excluded. This is willful serving of a drunk who has already said he’s had enough.
In Edward Howarth’s opinion, the government should create a framework for detecting problem gamblers and it shouldn’t be about the amount of money that is lost, but about percentages. “For someone, 500 NZD is 100% of the money he has. Let’s not say that you need to lose 20,000 to be a problem gambler. Let’s instead detect problem gambling behaviour using software. It would probably be stuff like gambling for too long, too often, with increasingly higher stakes after losses, with progressively larger deposits after losses. If you deposit $2k after having lost $1k, the intent is clear.”
At this moment, the flag should be raised and the player should be very close to being classified as a problem gambler. The casino should be on its toes and should reach out to the player. If the behaviour and the losses go on, the player should be denied service.
Or at least demand proof that his income is large enough to allow for the fourth $1,000 deposit in a week.