Evolution of online gambling practices in over the past 5 years: lessons for the regulation and prevention of problem gambling. Jean-Michel Costes French Monitoring Centre on Gambling, 6th International Conference on Pathological Gambling and Behavioral Addictions Warsaw, 19-20 November 2018
Plan vs 2012 ü ü in ü Evolution 2012/ ü and perspectives 2
Legal framework before 2010 3 Gambling(legal(framework(in((before&2010 Casinos (Tables(games,( Slot(machines) Poker Lotteries Sports( betting Horse( racing vs 2012 Off(line On(line Authorization/ Concession FDJ( (Française( des(jeux) FDJ( (Française( des(jeux) FDJ( (Française( des(jeux) PMU((Pari( mutuel( urbain) (=(State(monopolies (=(Private(operators (=(Prohibited
Legal framework after 2010 4 Gambling(legal(framework(in((after&2010 Casinos (Tables(games,( Slot(machines) Poker Lotteries Sports( betting Horse( racing vs 2012 Off(line On(line 9,8 % GR 90,2 % GR Authorization/ Concession Licensed( operators FDJ( (Française( des(jeux) FDJ( (Française( des(jeux) FDJ( (Française( des(jeux) Licensed( operators PMU((Pari( mutuel( urbain) Licensed( operators 24,5% GR (=(State(monopolies (=(Private(operators (=(Prohibited 41,5% GR 9,5% GR 24,5% GR
Gambling expenditure in 5 195 190 185 180 Spending per capita gambling expenditure (GGR) and share of Internet spending 178,5 8,8% 186,5 192,7 9,8% 12% 10% vs 2012 175 170 165 160 155 150 145 140 1,5% 167,8 3,4% 8% 6% 4% 2% 135 130 133,8 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0% Share of overall gambling spending on the Internet Overall gambling spending per capita 18 years old and over ( )
gambling spending by games 6 100% 90% 80% 21,1% Breakdown of online gambling spending by gaming activity 17,8% 17,5% vs 2012 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 25,4% 37,2% 38,4% 29,7% 23,3% 23,8% 20% 35,4% 10% 16,3% 14,1% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sports betting Horses racing Poker Lotery
e-games survey, ODJ 7 egames international project:, Canada, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Poland (gambling & related gaming) vs 2012 egames Based on Web Users Panel - «Le Carré des Médias» Médiamétrie - nearly 1 million internet users Time survey: 7 weeks, from 5 January to 24 February Sample: 22,700 French Internet users aged 18 and over Quotas to ensure its representativeness (on the criteria: sex, age) based on data from the Monitoring survey of Internet use by the French population (Médiamétrie, 4th quarter 2016) Final sample was weighted according the initial quotas Scope of these analyze on gamblers sample: Internet users who reported having gambled on the Internet at least one time in the last 12 months (N = 6,200; 6,380 weighted)
vs 2012 gamblers in in 2.4 to 2.9 million of online gamblers in in 8 Internet Users Gamblers Nongamblers Test dif. gamblers vs nongamblers Gender man 50,2 65,4 44,3 *** woman 49,8 34,6 55,7 *** Age 1-[18-34[ 28,4 37,8 24,7 *** 2-[35-54[ 39,0 43,7 37,1 *** 3-[55 +[ 32,7 18,5 38,2 *** Professional activity No 35,7 24,0 40,3 *** Yes 64,3 76,0 59,7 *** Graduation < Highschool 17,9 15,1 18,9 *** Highschool to college + 2 43,7 45,3 43,0 * At least college + 3 24,8 24,8 24,8 NS Household Financial Ressources (monthly) 1 500 25,2 22,4 26,4 *** [ 1 500 ; 3 000 ] 36,7 36,9 36,6 NS 3 000 38,1 40,7 37,0 ***
Activities practiced in 9 Activities practiced online gambling_online_overall gambling_online_lottery 70,3 100,0 Activities practiced offline gambling_online_drawing_games gambling_online_scratch_cards 36,2 62,1 jah_offline_scratch_cards jah_offline_drawing_games 42,0 34,7 vs 2012 gambling_online_sports_betting gambling_online_horses-racing gambling_online_poker gambling_online_casino & slot_m 30,6 17,0 20,5 13,0 jah_offline_slot_machines jah_offline_horses-racing jah_offline_sports_betting jah_offline_poker 12,1 9,5 8,4 7,9 gambling_online_slot_machines gambling_online_casino gambling_online_e_sport 10,0 6,1 4,3 jah_offline_casino jah_offline_other_games 4,8 5,1 gambling_online_financial_betting gambling_online_other_games 3,8 3,2 no offline activity 41,8 overall non regulated games 19,0 mainly online activity 59,2 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0
Intensity of practices 10 vs 2012 Intensity of practices according to the type of game, in, in Frequency (nbr of sessions p. Spending (in per year) Playing duration (in h. per year) Type of games mean median Q90 Gini mean median Q90 Gini mean median Q90 Gini Lottery 61 26 156 0,60 494 156 1340 0,71 170 4 57 0,96 Slot machines 107 52 210 0,64 1510 451 3120 0,78 572 20 253 0,94 Poker 78 26 210 0,58 871 180 2600 0,76 313 39 315 0,86 Other casino games 75 26 210 0,61 1307 260 2600 0,79 697 15 227 0,96 Horses racing 77 26 210 0,60 908 260 2100 0,74 57 10 130 0,82 Sports betting 74 26 210 0,64 1145 156 2612 0,80 72 5 130 0,87 e-sports betting 92 52 210 0,55 1205 260 3120 0,74 98 19 193 0,77 Financial betting 110 52 210 0,53 4453 780 10463 0,80 112 34 268 0,70 Overall gambling activites 118 38 290 0,69 1483 240 3120 0,83 324 9 223 0,94 Free games 108 26 210 0,73 92 10 130 0,87 PayToWin games 415 210 1040 0,56 188 42 390 0,76 389 117 895 0,76
Intensity of practices 11 vs 2012 Intensity of practices according to the type of game, in, in Frequency (nbr of sessions p. Spending (in per year) Playing duration (in h. per year) Type of games mean median Q90 Gini mean median Q90 Gini mean median Q90 Gini Lottery 61 26 156 0,60 494 156 1340 0,71 170 4 57 0,96 Slot machines 107 52 210 0,64 1510 451 3120 0,78 572 20 253 0,94 Poker 78 26 210 0,58 871 180 2600 0,76 313 39 315 0,86 Other casino games 75 26 210 0,61 1307 260 2600 0,79 697 15 227 0,96 Horses racing 77 26 210 0,60 908 260 2100 0,74 57 10 130 0,82 Sports betting 74 26 210 0,64 1145 156 2612 0,80 72 5 130 0,87 e-sports betting 92 52 210 0,55 1205 260 3120 0,74 98 19 193 0,77 Financial betting 110 52 210 0,53 4453 780 10463 0,80 112 34 268 0,70 Overall gambling activites 118 38 290 0,69 1483 240 3120 0,83 324 9 223 0,94 Free games 108 26 210 0,73 92 10 130 0,87 PayToWin games 415 210 1040 0,56 188 42 390 0,76 389 117 895 0,76
Free games 12 vs 2012 Freegames pratice among online gamblers Prevalence 42,2 Micro payment No 80,8 Yes 19,2 Time sequence: freegames/real gambling Before gambling 24,8 After gambling 45,6 At the same time as gambling 29,6 Links: freegames lead to playing real money? Yes 39,9 No 51,1 Don't know 9,0 Freegames pratice among online gamblers gambling_freegames_online_overall 42,2 gambling_online_e_sport 1,1 gambling_online_financial_betting 1,4 gambling_online_other_games 1,4 gambling_online_casino 4,0 gambling_online_horses-racing 4,2 gambling_online_sports_betting 7,8 gambling_online_slot_machines 10,5 gambling_online_poker 16,8 gambling_online_lottery 18,3 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0
PayToWin gaming 13 vs 2012 Pratices PayToWin games Play these games 59,2 % Spend money on these games 15,4 % PayToWin gaming is a social gaming activity characterized by the possibility to make payments during the game to significantly increase players chances to win or to help players better progress or faster progress in the game compared to players not paying; that is, players do not have to spend money to stay in the game, but they can pay to get privileges to increase their chances to win or advance to higher levels in the game.
Legal status of activities 14 vs 2012 Gamblers activity according to the legal status of the sites practiced in % * Lottery Poker Sports betting Horses racing Play on at least one regulated site 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Play on at least one unregulated site 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Play on both types of sites 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 e nature of the activity is undetermined 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 * % calculated on individuals for whom the nature of the activity is determined Type de jeu ** ** Only games for which there is a regulated offer are present: lottery, poker, sports betting or horses racing on at least one licensed website. The other games are 100% played on unregulated websites. Reading Guide: 90.2% of players playing lottery games play this type of game on at least one regulated website (here, the website of the FDJ), 13.0% on at least one unregulated lottery website. The sum of these two figures is greater than 100 because 3.2% play on both types of site. Whatever the nature of the game played, 33.8% of players play on at least one unregulated website, including games for which there is no regulated offer. Overall activities
problem 15 [8 +] PGSI overall online gamblers 13,0 [3-7] 9,4 [1-2] 19,1 vs 2012 0 58,4 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0
Problem gambling and intensity 16 vs 2012 Prevalence problem gambling- IPGSI 8 and + (%) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Frequency Spending Duration 1 2 3 4 Intensity of practices (quartiles)
Problem gambling and games 17 lottery PGSI and main activity played: prevalence of problem gambling (%) 8,1 5,9 PGSI and main activity played: share of the total number of gamblers (%) lottery 32,6 33,2 sports betting 10,9 15,4 sports betting 12,4 24,4 horses racing 10,9 13,5 horses racing 5,5 9,5 vs 2012 poker multiactivity e_sport betting 9,5 15,6 14,5 19,5 19,6 36,0 poker multiactivity e_sport betting 2,4 1,8 10,2 13,3 15,7 10,6 financial_betting 10,6 39,1 financial_betting 1,6 4,1 casino games 9,0 45,5 casino games 1,4 5,0 slot_machines 12,4 48,3 slot_machines 4,3 12,1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 PGSI [8;+] PGSI [3;7] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 PGSI [8;+] PGSI [3;7]
Problem gambling related factors vs 2012 Associated factors for PGSI 8 and more Gender Age Education level Marital status Professional activity and social category Income 18 Problem gambling prevalence OR Test (%) woman 9,9 ref. - man 14,7 1,57 *** 18-34 years 21,1 6,64 *** 35-54 years 10,0 2,75 *** 55 years and more 3,9 ref. - < Highschool 10,5 ref. - Highschool to college + 2 15,3 1,54 *** At least college + 3 13,2 1,29 * Single 13,0 ref. - Divorced or separated 14,7 1,16 ns Widowed 6,4 0,45 ** Marital Life 13,4 1,04 ns Actifs_lower prof. 14,3 5,00 *** Actifs_higher prof. 16,2 5,79 *** Actifs_median prof. 14,3 5,01 *** Inactifs_unemployed 9,2 3,03 *** Inactifs_students 21,0 7,96 *** Inactifs_retired 3,2 ref. - less than 1500 22,3 2,86 *** 1500-3000 14,1 1,64 *** more than 3000 9,1 ref. - Associated factors for PGSI 8 and more Main game practiced Use bonus Practice freegames Practice offline gambling activities Spend money on PayToWin games Problem gambling prevalence OR Test (%) lottery 8,1 ref. - horses racing 10,9 1,39 ns sports betting 10,9 1,39 * poker 15,6 2,10 *** casino games 45,5 9,50 *** slot machines 48,2 10,61 *** e_sport betting 35,9 6,37 *** financial betting 39,1 7,31 *** multiactiviy 19,5 2,76 *** No 9,5 ref. - Yes 32,5 4,59 *** No 4,6 ref. - Yes 24,5 6,71 *** No 10,6 ref. - Yes 14,8 1,47 *** No 11,5 ref. - Yes 27,4 2,91 ***
vs 2012 on online gambling 2012- ü Players' profile moves: more masculine, more active, more privileged social backgrounds ü The activities practiced evolve: sports betting in strong progression, unregulated activities ü Internet activity becomes predominant (among online gamers) ü Practices intensify, problems increase 19
Evolution on PGSI 2012-20 70 60 PGSI evolution 2012 50 vs 2012 40 30 58,5 59,3 20 10 0 24,0 19,1 13,0 9,4 10,1 6,6 [0] [1-2] [3-7] [8-27]
21 vs 2012 In 5 years, the profile of players has changed, practices have been intensifying and problems related have been increasing These results question the current strategies for preventing problem gambling online. We should think about it seriously and change it deeply.
Why is our strategy not more effective? 22 ü Current system is based on the goodwill of the operators, these are only means obligations vs 2012 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Share of revenues and PGSI 77,6 38,6 41,6 19,9 9,4 13,0 [1-2] [3-7] [8 +] Share of revenues (%) % of gamblers
Why is our strategy not more effective? 23 vs 2012 ü Current system is based on the goodwill of the operators, these are only means obligations ü If certain measures, which have proved their effectiveness, have been deployed ü However, others which are equally effective, have not been implemented ü And, some measures with weak effectiveness or ineffectiveness have been widely deployed
Effectiveness and efficacy of problem gambling prevention measures 24 vs 2012 -- Effectiveness ++ Information, risk awareness Health messages Staff training on responsible gambling Access forbidden to minors Gambling moderators Self-exclusion Restricted access Cost of the game (payout rate) Early detection and brief intervention Limitations for spending and losses Restricted alcohol or tobacco consumption Less addictive gambling games design Restricted publicity Restricted commercial relaunches - efficacy ++
How to improve our regulation? 25 vs 2012 1) A strong regulation / limitation of gambling advertising. 2) A regulation based on an obligation of results. The digitized data of gaming activities offer us very good indicators of the results of the strategies "responsible game" of the operators 3) More restrictive devices of limitations of bets or time spent 4) The systematic provision when opening a tracking tools account of his gaming behaviour 5) The systematic detection of excessive players to offer relevant help and effective evidence based.
References 26 vs 2012 Survey ü Tovar, Marie-Line, Jean-Michel Costes, et Vincent Eroukmanoff. «Les jeux d argent et de hasard sur Internet en en 2012». OFDT, Tendances, n o 85 (2013). ü Costes, J.-M., Eroukmanoff (). Evolution des dépenses aux jeux d argent et de hasard sur la période 2000-2016. Observatoire des jeux, note ODJ n 8. ü Costes, J.-M., Eroukmanoff (2018).Les pratiques de jeux d argent en en. Observatoire des jeux, note ODJ n 9. Efficacité ü Anderson, P., & Baumberg, B. (2006). Alcohol in Europe: a public health perspective : a report for the European Commission (p. 432). Luxembourg: Institute of Alcohol Studies (Great Britain). ü Babor, T. (Éd.). (2003). Alcohol: no ordinary commodity: research and public policy. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Babor, T. (Éd.). (2010). Drug policy and the public good. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Edwards, G., & Weltgesundheitsorganisation (Éd.). (1995). Alcohol policy and the public good. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gilbert, A., & Cornuz, J. (2003). Which are the most effective and cost-effective interventions for tobacco control? Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe (Health Evidence Network). McNeill, A., Ross, H., Joossens, L., Hastings, G., & Godfrey, F. (2004). Tobacco or health in the European Union: past, present and future. Report for European Commission. (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Organisation mondiale de la Santé. (2003). Convention-cadre de l OMS pour la lutte antitabac. Genève. Ősterberg, E. (2004). What are the most effective and cost-effective interventions in alcohol control? (p. 14). WHO Regional Office for Europe (Health Evidence Network). Strang, J., Babor, T., Caulkins, J., Fischer, B., Foxcroft, D., & Humphreys, K. (2012). Drug policy and the public good: evidence for effective interventions. The Lancet, 379(9810), 71 83. Williams, R. J., West, B. L., & Simpson, R. I. (2012). Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence and identified best practices. Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.