Real RG Policies Would Not Be Pretty

The current state of responsible gambling is a lot like an idling car. It’s primed and ready to go, but sitting still and burning through fuel. It's time for a change.

You know I’m born to lose;

And gambling’s for fools;

But that’s the way I like it, baby;

I don’t want to live forever;

Motörhead ~ Ace of Spades

I’ve been talking quite a bit about responsible gambling of late. Thus far, I’ve highlighted the many issues I see in the current responsible gambling discourse. In this column, I’ll discuss what, in my opinion, effective responsible gambling policies look like.

The 3 Pillars of Good RG Policies

There are a lot of good people in the responsible gambling space and a lot of exciting projects afoot, but I’m pretty certain that most of the current “we have to implement this for the sake of the children” policies will be discarded down the road.

As Jamie Salsburg said on X:

“Given all of the time/attention being paid towards identifying and intervening with problem gamblers, does anyone have a success story that backs the approach?

“I’m sure it has happened, but I’ve never met someone who had an operator engagement lead to recovery. Getting caught by a spouse, family member, or employer is what seems to be undefeated as the triggering mechanism.”

With that as the setup, an effective policy, a policy with teeth, should satisfy the following three criteria:

·        Measurable.

·        Eliminate or not create friction points (for the bettor).

·        Multiple off-ramps.

Let’s look at each of these in more detail.

Sponsorship opportunity

Want to sponsor the fastest-growing newsletter in the gambling space? Straight to the Point has multiple sponsorship opportunities available.

Reach out to Steve at iGamingPundit.com for more details.

Measure Twice, Cut Once

If the policy is enacted and nothing happens or nobody notices, it’s not much of a policy. If it has the reverse effect, we really have some problems, especially if that negative outcome goes unnoticed because it cannot be tracked and measured.

Putting logos on advertisements, adding 21+ to signage, disallowing terms like “free bets” but allowing “bonus bets,” and plenty of other policies are, in my opinion, borderline useless. They waste time and money. Whatever outreach, education, and off-ramps they offer is minimal and impossible to measure.

Don’t confuse this with hasn’t been measured. I’m all for experimentation. But, if a policy can’t be measured, it should be put on the backburner in favor of policies that can.

That’s a Nice Hoop. Can I Jump Through It?

Good policies should also eliminate friction points for those seeking help (and there has been progress on that front).

Here’s an example of a completely unnecessary friction point.

Michigan’s “award-winning” Don’t Regret the Bet campaign, as reported by Bonus.com:

Among the nearly 60,000 visitors were those who then called the Michigan Problem Gambling Helpline at 1-800-270-7117.

However, many stayed on the site.

There, if they scrolled past the animated image of a seated man surrounded by shark fins as he gambled on his smartphone, website visitors saw the fins retreat to a wider orbit around the man.

By the time scrolling site guests reached the “Avoid the Regret” tips, the “Truth or Myth” fact sheet, and the “Are You Playing It Smart?” quiz, the sharks were gone.

If those seeking help opted to skip those three pieces of content, they reached the bottom of the home page. There, they could pick between five downloads, which 401 individuals did.

Or they could immediately click on “more help.”

The latter moves them to the MGCB’s Responsible Gaming page. That page includes resources like self-exclusion options.

This is a nightmare journey. Look at how much scrolling it takes (including being sent to a different site - the only version of transferring someone to a different department) to find downloads to the information you seek.

Could you Tell Me How to Get Back on the Expressway?

One of my biggest concerns with the current approach is its lack of personalization. RG is like a hospital; it’s very sterile and sanitized. It uses (demands) euphemisms and treats every bettor like a delicate artifact.

As I said in a previous column:

“… the way gamblers are talked about strips them of their agency. They are viewed as pets that must be trained to behave in the proper way. My belief is that instead of a savior, most simply need someone to point them to the appropriate exit. But only when they are searching for it.”

How we approach a gambler should depend on where they are in their journey and, perhaps most importantly, how they interact with and approach us.