‘Only take the money you want to lose’ strategies for sticking to limits in electronic gaming machine venues

ABSTRACT

Government and regulator campaigns typically focus on educating gamblers to minimise harms from gambling, but we know little of the full range of strategies gamblers use to stick to limits. This mixed-methods study sought to understand the strategies utilised, recommended or avoided by gamblers. This study recruited 104 participants from 11 EGM venues in Australia, encompassing both no problem/low risk (65%) and moderate risk/problem gamblers (35%). Participants were administered the 30-item Gambling In-venue Strategies Checklist (GISC) and used an average of 14 different strategies over a 30-day period. Two strategies were frequently used by 90% of gamblers: use only the money brought into the venue and only play low denomination machines. Compared to PGs, low risk/no PGs more frequently avoided chasing losses, set cues to keep track of time, used only the money brought into the venue, planned in advance their spending, and also viewed gambling as entertainment. Qualitative analysis revealed the top strategies for limiting gambling were bring in the exact amount of cash and not taking cards and setting a money limit. The measure developed for this study appears to capture a broad range of strategies used by gamblers when engaging with EGM gambling.

KEYWORDS:

• Harm reduction
• player protection
• responsible gambling
• change strategies
• recovery
• self-regulation
• Gambling Protective Behaviour Scale

Author contributions

Authors A and B designed the study and wrote the protocol. Author A conducted the data analysis. Author A wrote the first draft of the manuscript and all authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF). VRGF had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Notes on contributors

Simone N. Rodda

Simone N. Rodda is Senior Lecturer at University of Auckland in New Zealand (School of Population Health) and an Honorary Senior Research Fellow with Turning Point (Melbourne, Australia) and also an Honorary Fellow at Deakin University. She is currently involved in multiple investigations involving behaviour change and brief interventions for problem gambling and other addictions.

Kathleen L. Bagot

Kathleen L. Bagot is a Research Fellow at the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, and an adjunct Research Fellow at Monash University. She is a social/behavioural scientist involved in conducting applied, translational research in complex settings (e.g., health care, education).

Victoria Manning

Victoria Manning is Head of Research and Workforce Development at Turning Point and Monash University. She has worked as a clinical researcher in addiction treatment settings for over two decades in the UK, Asia and Australia. Her research is heavily translational in nature, largely centred around trialling novel psychological and neurocognitive interventions to reduce harm from alcohol, drugs and gambling.

Dan I. Lubman

Dan I. Lubman has worked across mental health and addiction settings in both the UK and Australia. He is Director of Turning Point and Professor of Addiction Studies and Services at Monash University. His research is wide-ranging, and includes the development of targeted intervention programmes across multiple service settings.