Mar 4, 2025 | PROBLEM GAMBLING, RESEARCH
Artificial intelligence–commonly known as AI—is increasingly becoming a part of everyday life. We may think of its use in facial recognition apps, health care applications and even in a routine Google search, but what about its potential in problem gambling prevention and diagnosis?
Phil Sherwood, senior director of Responsible Gambling at PrizePicks, feels that AI can be a boon to responsible gambling programs and shared his perspective in a presentation to the MNAPG board in January.
What is AI?
AI is defined as the simulation of human intelligence in machines. It employs machine learning and language processing to automate tasks, enhance decision-making and boost efficiency.
Historic Use of AI
Gambling operators have been using AI for a long time to boost profits. It’s been used to improve marketing and to produce emotional appeals to specific customers, ultimately getting players to play more and more aggressively. AI has also been used to help gambling operators poach business from other operators.
Why use AI in Responsible Gambling Programs?
There are many reasons to employ AI in responsible gambling programs. Perhaps most importantly, AI can detect early signs of problem gambling, especially considering that more gambling and gaming is being done online. There is more data to access, such as time spent gambling, amount of money spent and other forms of gambling an individual might be involved in.
AI also enables personalized, real-time interventions. For example, if a player is exhibiting specific symptoms of problem gambling, the platform can send a personalized notification alerting them to risky behaviors or simply to make them more aware of their play. This notification might also suggest the responsible gambling tools that are available.
Another advantage of AI is that it reduces reliance on manual monitoring of a gambler’s behavior and allows for 24/7 oversight. With so many transactions available for analysis, a properly programmed AI system can identify potentially harmful behavior much better than humans.
AI-Driven Tools for Player Protection
AI can be used to protect players in several ways. It can identify risk behaviors such as loss-chasing and binge gambling. It can provide real-time alerts when it flags sudden changes that suggest immediate review. And it can also empower players gauge their own risk through gamified self-assessments in which they complete questionnaires. The gamified aspect may make players more receptive to the information that’s provided to them.
Interventional Levels Based on AI Insights
AI can suggest interventions commensurate with risk levels it assesses. For example, a system could address low-risk behaviors with basic pop-up reminders or session time limits. When a player exhibits moderate risk behavior, such as using different credit cards to gamble, the system can provide more tailored advice or impose or suggest temporary timeouts. When AI detects behaviors considered high-risk, it can instigate personalized care calls, exclusion options or even refer a customer to online behavioral counseling.
The U.S. is Behind in Use of AI
Phil noted that some operators, particularly those outside of the U.S. and those subject to regulations requiring the use of AI to monitor behavior, are incorporating AI to monitor player behavior and encourage player safety. However, he expressed concern that the U.S. is fearful of AI and that it’s use is discouraged, something he says would be an egregious mistake.
Challenges and Considerations in AI Implementation
While AI appears to hold considerable promise in protecting players from harm, there are challenges in its implementation. Some of those include privacy concerns (ensuring responsible use of player data), regulatory compliance (aligning AI tools with different jurisdictional standards) and the need for continuous improvement (models need regular updates based on evolving behaviors and research).
The Future of AI in Responsible Gaming and Problem Gambling
Looking ahead, Phil sees increased realization of the potential of AI with additional automation of support options for at-risk players, more predictive modeling for early intervention and standardization across operators for greater impact
“There will be so much innovation that comes from AI,” says Phil. “It’s evolved so much, even in the last year. I think the biggest things that will come from AI are things that we haven’t even thought of yet.”
Feb 3, 2025 | RESEARCH, YOUTH GAMBLING
By Nakita Sconsoni, MSW
Read the original article on the BASIS here.
Many adolescents may be exposed to gambling without realizing it. For example, youth who play video games may encounter chance-based mini-games that resemble actual gambling activities like roulette and blackjack, or they may purchase or be rewarded with mystery, in-game prizes, like loot boxes. These simulated gambling activities can lead to at-risk or problem gambling among adolescents. But how do we effectively safeguard young people from experiencing gambling harm? This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Lisa Lole and colleagues that identified adolescents’ views on how they can be better protected from gambling-related harm.
What was the research question?
According to adolescents, what strategies can be used to protect them from gambling-related harm?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers used recruitment agencies and online advertisements to obtain a sample of 89 adolescents aged 12-17 from Australia, and then surveyed them about gambling experiences via one-on-one interviews or an online discussion forum. Participants were screened for problem gambling using the DSM-IV-MR-J criteria and also answered open-ended questions about their gambling engagement. Participants then responded to questions about how adolescents could be protected from gambling harm (1) within their homes, (2) at school, (3) through advertisement/marketing practices, and (4) on a broader regulatory level. The researchers used the thematic analysis approach to analyze participants’ responses.
What did they find?
The most widely-recognized theme among participants was the desire for honesty about how gambling — and its associated harms — is communicated to them and represented in the media. Participants felt that rather than simply prohibiting gambling activities, parents can protect their children from gambling harm by including them in conversations about gambling and educating them about risks and responsible gambling practices (see Figure). Similarly, they felt that schools should use lived experience narratives to educate students about the addictive nature of gambling and the reality of gambling odds. On a broader scale, participants noted that gambling advertisements can be overly positive and misleading, and should not be broadcast on mediums that are frequently used by adolescents such as gaming and social media platforms. Instead, marketing campaigns should provide a more realistic understanding of gambling, including potentially negative outcomes, how to resist the temptation to gamble, and where to access help. Lastly, participants argued for gambling regulation reform, particularly within simulated gambling activities. They advocated for limits on in-game gambling features and in-game spending, as well as stricter age limits.
Figure. Direct quotes from participants on how to prevent gambling harm among adolescents, separated into four categories: (1) strategies that can be implemented with parents/guardians, (2) within the school system, (3) through advertising/marketing practices, and (4) through gambling regulations. Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
These findings suggest that adolescents recognize the need for a collective response to gambling prevention and education, with special considerations for young people. This public health effort needs to go beyond any approach that places the burden solely on the individual gambler to “gamble responsibility.” Instead, it should be the responsibility of various stakeholders to protect today’s youth from gambling-related harm, including parents/guardians, the school system (e.g., teachers and counselors), and gambling operators/regulators.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
The researchers did not use representative sampling, the sample size was relatively small, and all participants were from Australia. So, the findings might not be generalizable to adolescents from other areas. This study also relied on self-reported data, which could be subject to recall or social desirability bias.
For more information:
Do you think that you or someone you know might have a gambling problem? Visit the National Council on Problem Gambling for screening tools and resources. For additional resources, including gambling and self-help tools, visit our Addiction Resources page.
— Nakita Sconsoni, MSW
Jan 10, 2025 | RESEARCH
By Kira Landauer, MPH
Read the original article on the BASIS HERE.
Despite the growing popularity of gambling, most consumers, operators, and regulators recognize that this activity carries the potential for harm. Research indicates that some types of gambling appear to be more harmful than other types. To reduce harms from gambling, it is important to identify the gambling forms that are most often associated with harm. From there, researchers can work to identify the specific mechanisms that could make these forms more harmful than others and introduce factors to mitigate this risk. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Virve Marionneau and colleagues that identified the forms of gambling most often referenced by callers of gambling support helplines in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden during the period 2019–2022.
What were the research questions?
(1) Which forms of gambling are most often referenced in calls to gambling support helplines in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden during 2019–2022? (2) Are these rates changing over time?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers collected data from four years of calls and chats to three different gambling support helplines from Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. All three helplines collect data on the types of gambling that clients have engaged in or identify as having led to harm. The researchers coded products into one of nine forms of gambling: (1) land-based sports betting, (2) online sports betting, (3) horse games (online and land-based), (4) land-based casino, (5) online casino, (6) poker, (7) land-based EGMs outside casinos, (8) lotteries, and (9) other. Then they performed linear regression to examine whether these longitudinal trends changed over time during the study period.
What did they find?
Online gambling, and online casinos in particular, constituted the main concerns among callers to all three helplines. Furthermore, the share of calls that referenced online casinos grew in all three nations, while calls focusing on land-based forms decreased. For example, in Denmark, the percentage of calls referencing online casinos rose from 35.7% in 2019 to 46.8% in 2022. At the same time, the percentage of calls focused on land-based sports betting decreased from 23.0% in 2019 to a mere 4.8% in 2022. Interestingly, however, the rate of change in calls relating to land-based sports betting in Finland and Sweden failed to reach statistical significance (see table).
Figure. Selected suggested improvements to VSE programs, from representatives from various gambling-related sectors in seven jurisdictions (n = 102). Bulleted items are broad suggestions from participants and quotes are direct comments from participants pertaining to the suggested improvement. Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
These findings suggest that, to increase the utilization of VSE and reduce gambling-related harms, changes are needed to improve current VSE programs. Changes that facilitate the exclusion process, such as making it easier, more accessible, and more flexible, might increase utilization of these programs. It is common for gamblers who have self-excluded to breach VSE, in part because VSE regulations are often specific to only one venue type (e.g., casinos) and don’t extend to unauthorized online gambling operators. Stricter enforcement of VSE is needed to prevent breaches. This approach might include state/national, or even global, comprehensive registers. Such registers should include all gambling venues and locations, and additional measures could be taken to block unlicensed operators. Finally, gamblers should have access to a wide array of treatment and support services in addition to VSE (e.g., financial counseling).
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
Participants were not evenly distributed across gambling-related sectors, and some jurisdictions were missing respondents from one or more sectors. These 102 individuals were not a representative sample, and the findings might not generalize to the various gambling-related sectors and jurisdictions as a whole.
Nov 12, 2024 | RESEARCH
It can be hard to measure the impact of problem gambling prevention and treatment efforts, especially at a time when gambling — and reported instances of gambling addiction — are on a rapid rise. But thanks to the development of a comprehensive database of helpline calls initiated by the California Council on Problem Gambling (CALPG) — in conjunction with TELUS Health — there is now a framework for analyzing data on a granular level.
The database captures California helpline data dating back to 1998. While data was collected voluntarily, meaning not every caller answered questions, the database is exhaustive, amassing approximately 55,000 calls to the helpline. New data is added monthly.
The data, which can be viewed at www.calpg.org/hidd, can be sliced and diced in numerous ways. Some of these aspects include: age; gender; ethnicity; primary gambling preference; caller language; stage of change; education level; age of first gambling experience; and type of gambler (action or escape).
“The value in the database is that we can analyze it based on changes in targeted helpline marketing efforts as well as identify new trends,” says Robert Jacobson, executive director of the CALPG who helped develop the dashboard. For example, Robert noted that the impact of resources aimed at increasing engagement with California’s Hispanic community could be seen in the data through the use of different filters.
Although California gambling helpline data doesn’t necessarily reflect behavior in other states, including Minnesota, it’s likely that the trends are significant. Here are some findings from the data:
· Helpline volume (calls, texts and chats) reached its lowest point in 2020 due to the pandemic. However, total contacts (text, chat and calls) in 2023 increased by 25% compared to 2019.
· Forty-one percent of people in the 46-55 age group chose to enroll in motivational text messaging when given the option, compared to about 38% each in the 26-35 and 36-45 age groups, and 35% in the 18-25 group.
· Only 4.4% of helpline callers reported having a problem with gambling on the lottery in 2009. That has increased to 8.7% in 2024, nearly double.
· Day stock traders represented 0.1% of calls in 2009 but, possibly due to crypto trading, has increased nearly twentyfold to just under 2% of calls year to date.
· Since 2009, sports betting callers have increased from 2.2% to 11.8%, an increase of more than five times, despite sports betting not being legal in California.
· Thirty percent of 5,576 help seekers since 2018 said that playing video games has cost them more time or money than they can afford.
The TELUS data analysis model, first conceptualized by California, has been rolled out to several states, including Minnesota, which has a basic version.
The potential of the database is immense. “Our vision is for the database to be consolidated with as many states as are willing to participate,” says Robert. “That will give us an even better picture of gambling behavior.”
Nov 11, 2024 | RESEARCH
By John Slabczynski
Read the original article on the BASIS HERE.
Despite the growing popularity of gambling, most consumers, operators, and regulators recognize that this activity carries the potential for harm. Research indicates that some types of gambling appear to be more harmful than other types. To reduce harms from gambling, it is important to identify the gambling forms that are most often associated with harm. From there, researchers can work to identify the specific mechanisms that could make these forms more harmful than others and introduce factors to mitigate this risk. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Virve Marionneau and colleagues that identified the forms of gambling most often referenced by callers of gambling support helplines in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden during the period 2019–2022.
What were the research questions?
(1) Which forms of gambling are most often referenced in calls to gambling support helplines in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden during 2019–2022? (2) Are these rates changing over time?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers collected data from four years of calls and chats to three different gambling support helplines from Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. All three helplines collect data on the types of gambling that clients have engaged in or identify as having led to harm. The researchers coded products into one of nine forms of gambling: (1) land-based sports betting, (2) online sports betting, (3) horse games (online and land-based), (4) land-based casino, (5) online casino, (6) poker, (7) land-based EGMs outside casinos, (8) lotteries, and (9) other. Then they performed linear regression to examine whether these longitudinal trends changed over time during the study period.
What did they find?
Online gambling, and online casinos in particular, constituted the main concerns among callers to all three helplines. Furthermore, the share of calls that referenced online casinos grew in all three nations, while calls focusing on land-based forms decreased. For example, in Denmark, the percentage of calls referencing online casinos rose from 35.7% in 2019 to 46.8% in 2022. At the same time, the percentage of calls focused on land-based sports betting decreased from 23.0% in 2019 to a mere 4.8% in 2022. Interestingly, however, the rate of change in calls relating to land-based sports betting in Finland and Sweden failed to reach statistical significance (see table).
Table: The percentage and total number of helpline calls that referenced selected forms of gambling, by nation of origin and year. The * symbol indicates that the nation experienced a statistically significant change in the percentage of calls referencing that specific form of gambling during the window of observation. The “1” symbol indicates that the relationship was not tested due to violations in the assumptions for linear regression.
Why do these findings matter?
These findings provide insights into which forms of gambling are the most strongly related to harms as reported in helpline calls and can inform both public policy and research priorities. For example, because the authors found that online gambling was most strongly associated with harms, regulators may consider requiring that responsible gambling tools, such as voluntary self-limiting programs, be available on these platforms. Researchers may seek to prioritize studies on online gambling over other forms due to the increased risk of harm and could also consider studying self-reported harm across different types of gambling.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
This study tells us which gambling activities were mentioned in helpline calls, and presumably callers mentioned the games that caused them the most harm; however, the researchers did not measure the severity of callers’ problems. Although online gambling was the most commonly cited form of gambling by callers, it is unclear whether it is associated with a higher magnitude of harm compared to alternative forms of gambling. Furthermore, people who experience problem gambling rarely seek help due to stigma and other factors, so it is unclear how generalizable the findings are to gamblers who do not call the helpline.
Oct 7, 2024 | RESEARCH, YOUTH GAMBLING
By Kira Landauer, MPH
Read the original article on the BASIS HERE.
Worldwide, many young people gamble before they reach legal gambling age, with a portion experiencing gambling-related problems. To reduce the potential for harm, we need to understand the factors that shape adolescents’ gambling attitudes and behaviors as they grow up. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Nerilee Hing and colleagues that examined the gambling trajectories of Australian adolescents at different levels of gambling risk, and what influenced these trajectories during various stages of development.
What were the research questions?
What are the gambling trajectories of Australian adolescents at different levels of gambling risk? What influences these trajectories during different developmental stages?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers recruited 89 adolescents from New South Wales, Australia in 2022. They participated in interviews and online discussion communities, where they recounted their gambling experiences chronologically from childhood to present time. Participants were grouped by level of gambling risk based on a validated screen for gambling-related problems: (1) non-gambler (NG), (2) non-problem gambler (NPG), and (3) at-risk gambling or problems with gambling (ARPG). The authors performed thematic analyses to explore the gambling trajectories and their influences for each group during three developmental stages: (1) childhood, (2) early adolescence, and (3) later adolescence.
What did they find?
Childhood
Many participants were first exposed to gambling in childhood (see Figure). Most ARPGs and NPGs were introduced to gambling through their parents, and sometimes passively included in gambling (e.g., gifted scratch tickets). ARPGs, in particular, had positive memories of gambling and remembered it being a fun family activity. Parental gambling was less common for NGs, who became aware of gambling through other sources such as ads.
Early Adolescence
Participants became more aware of gambling options and opportunities during early adolescence through friends, family, ads, and mass media. NGs refrained from gambling, typically because of age restrictions or parental disapproval. Conversely, many ARPGs and NPGs began participating in gambling activities—usually betting privately with friends. Many participants became interested in sports-related betting during this time.
Later Adolescence
The gambling trajectories further diverged in later adolescence. NGs continued to refrain from gambling, and NPGs’ gambling involvement remained consistent or declined. However, ARPGs began to participate in an even wider array of gambling activities, including some high-risk activities like sports betting and skin gambling. They saw gambling as a way to bond with peers—friends often taught and encouraged gambling. Some ARPGs viewed gambling as a way to make money or to demonstrate their skill, unlike most NGs and NPGs.
Figure. Sources influencing the gambling trajectories of Australian adolescents (n = 89) at different levels of gambling risk and during different developmental stages: (1) childhood, (2) early adolescence, and (3) later adolescence. Themes pertaining to a specific risk level are indicated as such. Adapted from Hing et al. 2024.
Why do these findings matter?
Young people’s gambling behaviors evolve as they grow up. This evolution is shaped by multiple interacting sources of influence, including parents, friends, advertisements, and sports. Youth gambling prevention should focus on specific sources of influence at different developmental stages. Educational initiatives, like the Gift Responsibly Campaign, should inform parents of the potential risks of involving their children in gambling activities (e.g., via scratch tickets). Adolescents may also benefit from initiatives that focus on the development of social skills, like resisting peer pressure to gamble.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
Findings from this study might not be generalizable to adolescents in other Australian states or countries, where the gambling landscape and norms are different. This study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall bias.
Page 2 of 10«12345...10...»Last »
