Ms Sarah Hare Director, Schottler Consulting Presentation given on 23 May 2011 at "The New Game: Emerging technology and responsible gambling" forum hosted by the Victorian Government's Office of Gaming and Racing as part of Responsible Gambling Awareness Week 2011.

1. schottler consulting
insight from complexity
Factors which influence EGM player
adherence to gambling spend limits
Research commissioned by Gambling Research Australia
Presentation by Sarah Hare
Director - Schottler Consulting Pty Ltd
sarah@schottler.com.au

2. Research overview
• Research examined factors which influence whether gamblers kept to their
limits during EGM play
• Shadowing of 200 EGM players across Australia during pokies play
• Challenging method as all play transactions were recorded LIVE during play
• One of very few behavioural studies of EGM play
• Possibly the first study EVER to manually record live play transactions
• Findings revealed many insights into both EGM player behaviour
and EGM player adherence to limits during play
schottler consulting
insight from complexity

3. This shows the complexity of the data recording method!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(+ a detailed survey as well)
Money IN MULTI BETS Spins/games associated with LOSSES OR WINS FREE SPINS/FEATURES WON Double up/gamble
B. Max M. Won
A. EGM EGM J. Multi- I. Wins O. Amount
NOTES
COINS
E. Money F. Win G. Win H. Win K. Free spins L. Features from free
credit more N. Tally won/lost
($)
($)
prize
C.
D.
lost $0.01-$5 $5.01-$10 $10.01-20 won won spins/
bets than $20 $
features
(i) NAME $ WINS
(ii) DENOM
1c / 2c / 5 c
Every 5min (5=highest score) After F/spin After Feat. LOSSES
Excitement - ____ _____ _____ _____ Excitement - Excitement -
(iii) AGE _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Very new / ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
new / older B1. Is _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
this _____ _____ ___ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
machine ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
(iv) T/SCRN a linked Urge - ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Yes / No jackpot? ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____
(circle) _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ _____ Urge - Urge -
Yes / No _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
(iv)2m radius _____ _____ ___ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Q. Sound of other EGM coins falling S. Money accessed from U. Money cashed OUT
P. Songs R. Alcoholic drinks
ATM or EFTPOS (provide
playing? (EXCLUDING player’s) consumed (part or full)
$) - EVEN IF NOT SPENT
TOTAL $
WINE: ATM:
Yes / No BEERS:
SPIRITS: EFTPOS:
V. FINISH TIME -->
T. OTHER ACTIVITIES or events X. PLAY SATISFACTION (5=highest)
(list each and minutes)

4. How do EGM players
set their limits?
• In addition to money limits, 80% set bet size limit, 28% time limit
• 42% of problem gamblers set a bet size limit on more than 2 credits per line (versus 15% of non-problem gamblers)
• At-risk gamblers were less likely to set a time limit (compared to non-problem gamblers)
• When a time limit was set, problem gamblers set a higher time limit (p<.05) (81.3 v 50.3 minutes)
• Only half (52%) set their expenditure limit more than a day before play
• Problem gamblers were less likely to ‘always’ set limits (p<.001)
• Despite this, problem gamblers were also more likely to report loans
(p<.05)
• Higher-risk players also tended to report fewer budget categories
• Problem gamblers were more likely to overspend household budgets
(especially food, car, cigarette budgets) (p<.05)
schottler consulting
insight from complexity

5. Problem gamblers had great difficulty deciding on their limit (!)
Self-reported EGM expenditure limits at three different points in time
123.8
F
120
105.4
F
Mean EGM expenditure limit ($)
100
80
68.6
F
60
47.3 47.4 46.1
H H H
40 37
B 34.3
B 31.2
J B
J J
31.6 27.3 29.2
20
Outside venue Before play at venue After play at venue
B Non-problem gamblers H Moderate risk gamblers
J Low risk gamblers F Problem gamblers

6. Did EGM players
keep to their limits?
• Based on observation of spending - Between 12-16% of EGM players
exceeded their spend limit in a single session
• However, based on self-report – only 7% reported exceeding their spend limit
• 17% exceeded time limit (based on observation) (or 2% based on self-report)
• 7% exceeded their bet size limit (based on self-report)
• Results raise issues such as:
• How should adherence to limits be measured?
• How often and where should players set limits?
schottler consulting
insight from complexity

7. Factors which influenced whether players
kept to spend limits – General factors
• Players who set spend limits closer to play were more likely to not
adhere to their limits (p>.05)
• Players exceeding spend limits were less likely to set a time limit (p<.05)
• 30% of players reported using ‘control strategies’ and players who didn’t report
‘control strategies’ were more likely to exceed their limit (p<.05)
• Players exceeding spend limits were less likely to notice RG signage
(p<.01) and players not noticing signage were more absorbed in play (p<.05)
• Players exceeding spend limits were more likely to feel they were
‘due’ for a win (p<.01) and to report ‘chasing losses’ (p<.001)
(especially after a feature!)
schottler consulting
insight from complexity

8. Factors which influenced whether players
kept to spend limits – EGM design factors
• Players were more likely to exceed their EGM expenditure limit if they:
• Received an increased number of free spins (after moving from the 1st to 2nd EGM) (p<.001)
• Were highly absorbed and involved in play (p<.05)
• Reported feeling stronger urges to continue during EGM play (p<.05)
• Experienced high excitement after receiving features during EGM play (p<.05)
Mean spins per minute by risk for problem gambling and player adherence to precommitted spend limits
14
Mean spins - players who did NOT adhere to limits
13
• Findings also showed 12
12
a link between speed
Mean spins per minute
11
of play and adherence 10
to limits (p<.05) 9
8 7.8
Mean spins - players who adhered to limits
7
6 5.5 5.5
5.2 5.3 5.1 5.1
5
Non-problem Low risk Moderate risk Problem Non-problem Low risk Moderate risk Problem
gamblers gamblers gamblers gamblers gamblers gamblers gamblers gamblers
schottler consulting
EGM spins per minute of play (excluding free spins, features and usei n s i g h t f r o m c o m p l e x i t y
of double-up)

9. Factors which influenced whether players
kept to spend limits – Lifestyle factors
• Recent retirement increased likelihood that players
exceeded limits (p<.01)
• Players were less likely to exceed expenditure limits if they had
‘money worries’ and reported the following in past year:
• Taking on a mortgage, loan or making a large purchase (p<.01)
• Experiencing daily money hassles (p<.05)
• Concern over owing money or debts (p<.05)
• Concern over job security (p<.05)
schottler consulting
insight from complexity

10. Factors which predict c t o r s w h i c h pduring EGM play
F a urge to continue r e d i c t
urges to continue EGM play
Excitement from features Coin drops in background
The higher excitement ratings when The more players heard coin drops in
features were received during play the background (r=.196, p<.01)
(r=.599, p<.001)
Friendliness of venue staff
Overall play excitement
The friendlier the sta were at the
The higher the overall play excitement
EGM venue (r=.178, p<.05)
(r=.526, p<.001)
Controlling for risk
Excitement from free spins Higher number of multi-credits for problem gambling
The higher the excitement ratings when The total multi-credit bets made
during EGM play (r=.166, p<.05)
free spins were received (r=.322, p<.01) Higher urge to
continue EGM play
Total features during session Money won - free spins/features
The more features recorded during the The more money won by players following
live observation (r=.247, p<.001) free spins/features (r=.164, p<.05)
• Promotions + prizes
were also linked to
Total free spins during session Tending towards significance excitement (p<.001)
The total free spins recorded during Player desire for wins (r=.13, p=.07)
the live observation (r=.216, p<.01) The more players had wins from $10-20 • The greater the
(r=.272, p=.09) or 1c-$5 (r=.13, p=.07) change in excitement
The more spins associated with money (from EGM1-2), the
Loyalty points/incentives lost (r=.14, p=.06)
greater the urge
The more players visited venue for
loyalty points/incentives (r=.214, p<.01) to continue (p<.001)

11. Other interesting EGM
LIVE play observations
• Both moderate risk and problem gamblers tended to play EGMs offering higher prizes
• Problem gamblers were more likely to select linked jackpot machines
(55% compared to only 41% of non-problem gamblers)
• Problem gamblers were more likely to play at hotels
(69% compared to 37% of non-problem gamblers)
• Moderate risk and problem gamblers played in areas where there were fewer people
• Problem gamblers put more money on the credit meter before commencing play
• Problem gamblers made more multiple credit bets and used double-up more
frequently than non-problem gamblers
schottler consulting
insight from complexity

12. Conclusions
• Various aspects of EGM and venue design may be related to
players exceeding limits or the urge to continue play
(eg. Free spins, features, loyalty points + incentives)
• While there are many risk factors for exceeding limits,
many players also have an ability to self-regulate
• Research also suggests that problem gamblers have difficulty
deciding on their spend limit, have less clear household budgets +
may play faster
• Highlights the need for balance and control during gambling
schottler consulting
insight from complexity