Responsible gaming tool: “Limit Setting” – its chances, challenges and shortfalls

Today, there are many limit setting Responsible Gaming tools – these can be imposed or self-imposed, by obligation or free choice. Most popular are still deposit and stake limits. These are the easiest to implement and monitor. While deposit limits are mainly used online, stake limits are a first choice for land-based gaming.

Loss limits and time limits are also growing in popularity. In 2021, Germany introduced a new gaming law, with a strong focus on limits. Online operators in Germany now have to offer loss limits and must include a panic button on their site. Immediately, this button leads to a 24 hours block.

However, the question is: Are limit policies, as implemented today, indeed an efficient tool to prevent excessive spending and at-risk play? In this article, we will try to unwrap some thoughts on this.

Reasons for limit settings

One of the major objectives of limits is to protect gamblers from developing problem behaviours. Ultimately, this also means protecting them from gaming related harms. Limits also aim to prevent people from spending more than they can afford, without necessarily speaking about problem gaming.

We often hear comments along the lines of: “A problem gambler might not spend more than EUR 100 per month and show many signs of problematic behaviour. This is while someone who spends EUR 20,000 per month but has the financial means for this, might display no at-risk behaviour.” Is this reasonable? Or, are limits effective in providing at least a very important safety net?

What does scientific evidence say?

One of the most well researched versions of limit setting is 'self-limits'. These are limits which players set for themselves on their own gaming. Nelson et al. (2008) showed back in 2008 that deposit self-limits were widely accepted by gamblers, and limits once set were kept in 88% of cases. The limits themselves led to a significant reduction in gaming frequency, as well as gaming volume. In addition self-limiters seem to use the action of setting a deposit limit as a first symbolic step towards abstinence. Depending on the preferred type of game, between 14% and 31% of the self-limiters did not gamble again after imposing the limit.

More recent studies confirm this. Auer and Griffith (2013) analysed 100,000 gamblers from the Austrian monopoly website 'win2day'. The results of the study showed that voluntary limit setting had "a specific and statistically significant effect on high intensity gamblers”.

However, when it comes to self-imposed time limits, some shortfalls have been shown. In 2004, Bernhard and Preston were already able to describe the adverse effects time limits could have on gaming behaviour. They concluded that “problem gamblers who are aware that closing time is fast approaching might well gamble in a more frenzied fashion”.

Stake limits

Stake limits in the offline environment are seen as an easier choice, as here it is difficult to track spend or behaviour. In many instances, for example a deposit limit is not possible, unless deposits are connected to a central register and cash is not accepted.

However, let's do a calculation of the possible losses, even with stake limits. Let's take the 2 pound stake limit for slots in the UK as an example. In the UK, one can spin the wheel 120 times in 10 minutes. In an hour, one could then lose – at least theoretically – £1440. Of course, one wins in between, but losing £1000 in an hour does not really seem like much of a restriction.

Imposed limits across all operators and affordability checks

We have seen that limits can have some desired effects, but that even today, there are easy ways out of their restrictions. Self-imposed limits, although effective, can be changed easily, of course. Imposed limits can be circumvented by simply playing simultaneously with different operators or moving offshore. This is why Germany has ‘invented’ the deposit limit across all operators, which is monitored and controlled via a central register. Italy wants to follow suit and the UK is debating affordability checks of customers, testing to see which limit is the right one. At first sight, those seem to be sophisticated solutions to the problem. But, will they be accepted by gamblers and will they work?

Accompanying these new paths with research and effectiveness measurements will be crucial to come closer to the most efficient solution.

In the meantime, members of Digitalrg.com can find a detailed benchmark of the limits, tools, and technologies used online at over 25 lotteries and gaming companies. To get access, contact us here: [email protected]