More problematic gambling behaviour through licensed online casinos?

It is a daring thesis: In the long run could there be more “problem players” than in the past because of the liberalisation of online games of chance? According to the Federal Ministry of Health (BZgA) in Germany alone there are around 430,000 people affected by a problematic or pathological gambling behaviour. But how does the State Gambling Act which came into effect in 2021 affect the players’ behaviour?

In the past the team from GambleJoe has often tackled the issue of the dangers of games of chance. For example in summer 2021 we had published an article tackling the issue of how does one recognise gambling addiction and control it. By law the most important aim of the GlüStV, which came into effect on the 1^st.July 2021, is to “prevent gambling and betting addiction”. However, the question arises whether the controversial control measures are actually beneficial for player protection – or whether in the long term they can have the opposite effect.

Are there more “problem players” in licensed online casinos?

It is no secret that many of the measures to protect the players which are imposed by the policy, have not garnered the sympathy of many gambling enthusiasts. In our experience the minimum game duration of five seconds, the maximum stake of one Euro per game round, the auto-spin ban and the tax of 5.3% on all stakes made at virtual slot machines, are the most unpopular.

An interesting question is whether the strict player protection measures could have the effect that more players could display a problematic playing behaviour. For example it might be possible that a player loses the overview of his finances much earlier, since he keeps clicking on “start” in an uncontrolled manner to start a new game round instead of determining a fixed number of rounds with a fixed amount from the beginning.

Besides this, the maximum allowed stake round of one Euro could lead to the fact that the game sessions are prolonged, and losses are not really taken into consideration since one “only” loses a comparatively small amount with every spin. Even the controversial “slot tax” which amounts to more than five per cent of the stake could in practice have the effect that players are angry about their worse game balances and in frustration they could gamble more money than they had planned.

The only productive countermeasure seems to be the deposit limit of 1000 Euro per month and per player across multiple providers. Under normal circumstances a player can lose this amount in the maximum timeframe of one month. However there are only a few citizens who in the long term can afford to constantly lose a four-digit figure in a month. The monthly deposit limit only provides a limited protection in preventing problematic game behaviour.

Too strict player protection measures are not beneficial

This is aggravated by the fact that many players could lose the fun when playing in their free time under the described conditions. That could lead to the fact that they turn to the illegal gambling market, where in our experience players are less protected – if they are protected at all – from the dangers of games of chance. Within a very short time players can lose more money in these online casinos and there are generally no professional help services. There is also no possibility of having a self-limit. In March of last year in an article we had published on GambleJoe we had tackled the issue of which players are especially gambling addicted. We had discovered that young male adults up to 25 years with a migration background or a comparatively low income are especially prone to suffer from a problematic gambling behaviour.

Conclusion

Till now there is not any reliable data that shows that the newly introduced protection measures about player protection do lead to an increase in the number of “problem players“. However, two years after the new State Gambling Acy came into force, it is evident that there are more risk factors which are to be taken seriously and which could help ease the way to a problematic gambling behaviour. If this is the case then the political goal, which is clearly stated in § 1 GlüStV, the German State Gambling Act, (“preventing gambling and betting addiction “), would have failed.

Image source: https://pixabay.com/de/illustrations/verkehrszeichen-achtung-vorfahrt-63983/