DashTickets lead writer Edward Howarth: Casinos target problem gamblers if you don't stop them
Everyone is always talking about player protection, safe gambling, and protection from gambling harm. But what is that exactly and how is it done? The casinos are rarely to blame yet they profit from problem gamblers the most, leaving everyone else to mop up the mess. In this article we ask Edward Howarth, an industry expert and the lead writer for DashTickets, a leading New Zealand gambling website, about the nuances of problem gambling and who should, in fact, take the blame when things go sour.
It is no secret that casinos make the most money from gamblers who exhibit problem gambling behaviour and therefore make unreasonable bets as they chase losses and desperately try to get back to positive. The question to ask now, in the light of upcoming gambling regulation in New Zealand as proposed by the National government is - how can the regulatory body intervene to help the player. This is why we turn to Edward.
Thank you for joining us, Edward. Right off the bat - is the problem gambler to blame? A free person in a free country, doing what he wants. Isn't it his own choice to autoplay at NZ$5 on Big Bass Splash pokie in despair?
You'd think it's his free will and free choice. But what if casinos are actually elaborate nets designed to attract, retain and exploit a problem gambler? What if, once they identify him as a problem gambler (or a really bad gambler), they don't stop targeting him with bonuses he can not refuse just so he would gamble some more?
When you see an addict, you can offer him help or you can make it worse. That's what makes the difference. In the end it's his decision but he's not the puppet master here. Also, it takes quite a bit of work before you manage to isolate such a player.
You're saying that, individually, the person is responsible for his actions, but the casino is to blame for what they're doing on the market as a whole?
Exactly. No one can force a person to make an unreasonable bet, and no one can stop him, for that matter. The final decision is his. He can quit gambling today and never go back. No one can hurt him if he decides that. But the casino knows he's vulnerable, and knows which tactics to use to make him gamble some more.
Where is the line? At what point does the casino become predatory?
The second when they identify him as a problem gambler, they have a choice. Get help for him, ignore him, or target him. The latter should be a crime, on the same level as fraud.
How exactly are they targeting him?
“Hey, come back, we got a superb bonus for you. Deposit at least NZ$200, we'll give you NZ$200 more, and you get some free spins as well.” If you send that to a person who just lost a lot of money, you're giving him a lifeline to try to win the money back. Trying to win the money back is the definition of all problem gamblers.
Also, the very act of profiling players should be illegal in all jurisdictions that are concerned with the welfare of the player. If a casino is profiling, they're already guilty. You ought to offer exactly the same playing field to all customers.
If a problem gambler isn't targeted in that manner, and is simply gambling away, making unreasonable bets - is he to blame?
Yes. It's all on him or her.
Should anyone intervene?
No, I don't think so. As long as he has a level playing ground like everyone else, and isn't being excluded from the group and targeted, no one should intervene.
What do you think about TV ads? They can't be targeting anyone too specifically.
Ads are, inherently, lies. Designed to mislead you into thinking you need this or that. I'm not a big fan, yet you can't ban that. What some countries have done is the usage of the word “free” in gambling ads, unless something is really free. I'm fine with TV ads, as long as someone smart knows how to regulate what is allowed.
What about online ads?
Working for a website, DashTickets, I should know that online you have access to tools that let you profile and target customers. Online advertisements of all types are inherently more dangerous. This is why there's an even greater responsibility on us who publish on online platforms. We need to be careful about what we write.
Most developed countries are now banning credit card deposits to gambling operators. What do you think about that?
A superb move. It is designed to prevent people from gambling on credit - deposit with a credit card now, pay the bill in a month, win some money with the borrowed money in the meantime. Gambling on credit is a bad thing to do. This ban prevents people from doing it so easily.
Should the government really be so concerned with player protection? Should they spend so much time and money to prevent players from causing harm to themselves?
Yes - if they're making money from the tax from this activity. This is when it starts making sense. The closure of the circle. If the regulatory body is making money from licensing and from tax, then it should be concerned with helping those people that fall under the wheels of the bus. There are job roles, too, people can specialise in helping problem gamblers. It all makes a lot of sense.
Can you compare an average unregulated market with an average regulated market? In terms of benefit for the player.
The unregulated markets are a jungle. The regulated ones are good if the regulatory body actually took clever steps when it comes to player protection, such as banning the word “free” in advertisements or putting the onus on the casinos to detect problem gamblers. Yet so many regulatory bodies are mindless and haven't got a clue. Some of them even assume an authoritative and negative stance towards gambling, as if they'll curb gambling by saying it's bad.
Is gambling bad?
Doesn't matter. It isn't going away one way or the other. That's why it's better if we regulate it so we have certain control over it and so we can mitigate harms that come from gambling.