About self-exclusion in gambling (II)
By Dan Iliovici, Vice-President ROMBET
In most states with a tradition of developing programs generically called “Responsible Gambling”, but also in countries that have more recently legalized gambling, there are self-exclusion schemes for players. Such programs are also offered by most gambling operators, even in the absence of a legal framework, these being designed to limit access to gambling opportunities and to offer help to problem gamblers.
I will present the most important ways of putting self-exclusion programs into practice, but it should be noted that there is no model that can be automatically adopted by each state, especially given that the legislation in the field of gambling is not unitary, not even at the European level.
Simply put, self-exclusion is a tool for those who want to stop or (self-)limit their access to gambling for a certain period of time, or even permanently. This self-imposed break interval can be from a few months to five years, the most common intervals being 3 months, 6 months, one year, two or five years.
There are some cases (jurisdictions) where permanent self-exclusion can be required, but probably the difficulties in tracking compliance and the effectiveness of this measure make it difficult, if not impossible to implement.
We must emphasize that without the player’s initiative and willingness to honor this commitment, self-exclusion is ineffective.
We don’t need to get into the blame game, but perhaps more than in other cases, for self-exclusion to have the desired effect, player cooperation is essential. However, this does not mean a reduction of the responsibility of all the other parties involved: operators, authorities, the family or friends of the person in question. All can contribute to the success of joint efforts to return problem players to normal behavior.
And since we mentioned the implementation method, any self-exclusion program provides for who keeps track of self-excluded people and who verifies compliance with this commitment.
In practice, we have found three ways of drawing up a register of self-excluded persons:
1. each operator keeps its own records, the player being thus obliged to repeat the self-exclusion procedure with all the operators he wants to be stopped from playing;
2. there is an independent entity (most often an NGO) that keeps track of the players and operators from which the person in question has decided to be self-excluded. This organization receives self-exclusion requests from players and disseminates the list of such players to operators enrolled in the system;
3. the record of self-excluded players and communication with operators is ensured by the authority responsible for the field of gambling in the respective jurisdiction.
In either case it is up to the operators to take the most reasonable measures to stop players from accessing the platforms or locations for which the person has self-excluded.
Each of the three models has advantages and disadvantages, but the most important criterion for implementing such a system should be the protection and care of the players.
Thus, we should have procedures as simple as possible, clear explanation of the options and necessary steps, and then, a combination of this tool with the other ways of help, counseling and therapy. For the same purpose, the operators, but also the authorities, should make the self-exclusion system known to all players, and make it as easily accessible as possible.
If for online gambling it is relatively simple to check at the beginning of each login to the game platform whether or not the player is self-excluded (if he is on the self-excluded list/database) and depending on this to allow him access to game, in the case of traditional gambling, where in the vast majority of states the player is not identified upon entering the gaming premises, this fact increases the liability of the operator. It is up to him to set up a system to stop the self-excluded from playing. In this sense, an important role is played by the training of the staff at the game locations and the establishment of an effective monitoring system.
To emphasize the role of the player in honoring his own commitment, the authorities encourage players who, despite the self-exclusion request, have managed to play at an operator, to report this “security breach” to the management of that operator, or even to the authority, so that they can improve the system of verification and implementation of the self-exclusion scheme.
It is also common practice for operators from which a player has self-excluded to remove the player from all marketing programs – sending promotional messages, invitations to events, etc., and return all money in the account in the case of online games. The player should no longer be “entice” to play after self-exclusion.
As an argument for the establishment of a performant self-exclusion system, I will quote the conclusions of the study ”Self-Exclusion Program: A Longitudinal Evaluation Study”, published by Patrick Gosselin in Journal of Gambling Behavior 23(1):85-94:
” The self-exclusion program has many positive effects. During the assessments, the urge to gamble (to gamble) was significantly reduced, while the perception of self-control increased for all participants. The intensity of the negative consequences of gambling was significantly reduced for daily activities, social life, work and mood. The DSM score was significantly reduced over time.
(…)
In conclusion, the self-exclusion program needs monitoring and an on-going evaluation of the outcome. To do this, operators should cooperate with independent evaluators who periodically and randomly check program adherence. This measure would increase understanding of the process and motivate the gambling industry to maintain its commitment.”
One last aspect that should be mentioned in relation to self-exclusion is the subject of personal data protection. But we leave this topic for GDPR specialists to analyse.
