Predicting self-exclusion among online gamblers: An empirical real-world study

Abstract

Protecting gamblers from problematic gambling behavior is a major concern for clinicians, researchers, and gambling regulators. Most gambling operators offer a range of so-called responsible gambling tools to help players better understand and control their gambling behavior. One such tool is voluntary self-exclusion, which allows players to block themselves from gambling for a self-selected period. Using player tracking data from three online gambling platforms operating across six countries, this study empirically investigated the factors that led players to self-exclude. Specifically, the study tested (i) which behavioral features led to future self-exclusion, and (ii) whether monetary gambling intensity features (i.e., amount of stakes, losses, and deposits) additionally improved the prediction. A total of 25,720 online gamblers (13% female; mean age = 39.9 years) were analyzed, of whom 414 (1.61%) had a future self-exclusion. Results showed that higher odds of future self-exclusion across countries was associated with a (i) higher number of previous voluntary limit changes and self-exclusions, (ii) higher number of different payment methods for deposits, (iii) higher average number of deposits per session, and (iv) higher number of different types of games played. In five out of six countries, none of the monetary gambling intensity features appeared to affect the odds of future self-exclusion given the inclusion of the aforementioned behavioral variables. Finally, the study examined whether the identified behavioral variables could be used by machine learning algorithms to predict future self-exclusions and generalize to gambling populations of other countries and operators. Overall, machine learning algorithms were able to generalize to other countries in predicting future self-exclusions.

Development of the Online Problem Gaming Behavior Index: A New Scale Based on Actual Problem Gambling Behavior Rather Than the Consequences of it

“…To date, studies have used self-exclusion as proxy measures for problematic gambling ( Haeusler, 2016 ; Percy et al, 2016 ; Dragicevic et al, 2015 ). However, self-exclusion is not entirely the same as problematic gambling ( Auer & Griffiths, 2016 ; Catania & Griffiths, 2021 ; Hopfgartner et al, 2023 ). The scale will also be of use to health practitioners involved in therapeutic interventions of individuals with gambling problems (particularly psychologists, psychiatrists, addiction specialists, and treatment providers) who can use the scale alongside other diagnostic screens (e.g., DSM-5, PGSI).…”

“…Specific aspects of gambling behavior (e.g., increased gambling intensity, chasing losses, etc.) and communication-based aspects of gambling (e.g., verbally aggressive email correspondence) have been emphasized as indicators of problem gambling ( Catania & Griffiths, 2022 ; Hopfgartner et al, 2023 ; Ukhov et al, 2021 ). The rationale for a new screen is that items in the most used current problem gambling screens primarily focus on consequences of problem gambling and psychological aspects of problem gambling rather than the behavior itself.…”

Voluntary Self-Exclusion and Contingency Management for the Treatment of Problematic and Harmful Gambling in the UK: An Exploratory Study

“…VSE methods may also struggle to regulate gambling-like content within video games, which could influence the development of offline PG/HG [38][39][40]. Because of vast individual variation and the variety of gambling experiences available, the reasons why specific individuals may benefit from VSE still require significant investigation [41][42][43][44].…”

The Efficacy of Voluntary Self-Exclusions in Reducing Gambling Among a Real-World Sample of British Online Casino Players

“…Therefore, VSE is not a reliable proxy measure for problem gambling (Griffiths & Auer, 2016 ; Catania & Griffiths, 2021b ). However, some studies have analyzed behavioral markers associated with VSEs, and argued that markers such as frequent limit changes and short-term VSEs, use of multiple payment methods, frequent in-session deposits, or playing multiple types of games may indicate potentially problematic gambling behavior (Finkenwirth et al, 2021 ; Hopfgartner et al, 2023 ).…”