30 October, 2024 | NOV DEC 2024

Examining deposit limits in safer gambling

Duncan Garvie, BetBlocker Trustee and Founder, and Gambling Insider contributor, writes about deposit limits in safer gambling

It’ll come as no surprise to anyone familiar with me that I spend a great deal of time talking to stakeholders across the sector about safer gambling tools. I’m pleased to say that, over my years in the sector, the attitude and enthusiasm evident in these conversations has shifted substantially for the better. Nevertheless, I still regularly end up in discussions that are critical of various harm minimisation strategies being pursued by regulatory agencies.

To be upfront about my views, I have significant misgivings about several regulatory strategies that have been deployed in recent years. From source-of-wealth checks to arbitrary bet caps, there have been a number of policies that have gained regulatory support in recent years that have the appearance of policy for applause. These are efforts based on appearing tough on the gambling sector, rather than there being significant evidence to suggest the strategy will be effective at reducing gambling harms. But one harm minimisation tool that I feel comes in for too much criticism within the sector is the deposit limit.

Horses for courses

What is there to criticise about deposit limits? When I speak to operators, the criticism I frequently hear is that deposit limits are not effective. The evidence to support this claim? That operators frequently see players set a deposit limit on one brand, but when the limit is reached, move to another brand owned by the same (or different) group to continue playing. So these limits aren’t actually stopping players spending. They’re just forcing the player to play elsewhere.

While it is an undeniable fact that this sort of behaviour can and does happen, to question the effectiveness of deposit limits overall based on these examples is to miss the whole point of the feature. To use a well-known turn of phrase with a gambling origin, supporting players to engage in safer play is a case of horses for courses. One size does not fit all.

Using BetBlocker as an example, our app has tens of thousands of active users every day. For many, people blocking software is highly effective. We’re regularly contacted by treatment providers who recommend BetBlocker during their first contact with new clients. And the consistent rise in the number of devices connected to our servers is proof positive that, for thousands of people, once BetBlocker is on their device it stays on.

But not for everyone. There are people who are at the more severe end of the harm spectrum who will go to great lengths to get around any barrier that is put between them and reaccessing gambling. Our User Support team is contacted daily by people looking to remove their block. Some of them get quite triggered when we won’t assist them with this. And some of them are so incensed that they will then exert great effort to get round the protections BetBlocker offers, and will even contact us again afterwards to gloat, as if by bypassing the restrictions they’ve had some sort of victory. Addiction drives irrational behaviour.

Harm is a spectrum

So does the failure of BetBlocker for some users undermine the value of the service we offer? Of course not. While we should always strive to make our tool better, it will never be perfect and blocking software simply won’t be an effective tool for some people.

And likewise for deposit limits. Yes, deposit limits won’t work for every player. Rather than accepting they’ve reached their limit and stopping playing, some players will actively seek out alternative sites to play when their spending cap is reached. But these players are the exception rather than the rule. Many players find deposit limits a really useful tool for helping them stay within a range of play that is safe and affordable for them.

We should not allow ourselves to fall into the trap of only seeing worth in harm minimisation strategies that are effective for the most addicted individuals. Harm is a spectrum. If we focus our approach to mitigation on the most severely impacted people, we will always be reacting to a crisis that’s already occurred. When we provide flexibility of options and support those that aren’t currently at a point of crisis to engage in a safe and healthy fashion, we prevent crises from occurring.

So I’ll always be a strong proponent of deposit limits, and any other strategy that seeks to engage everyday gamblers in behaviour patterns that encourage safer engagement.